Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Brighton, Hove and Worthing Gas Bill,

Huddersfield Corporation Bill,

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour what is the state of the negotiations for a national agreement in the aircraft industry; and whether his Department has taken any steps to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I understand that negotiations on various matters are taking place through the joint machinery in the engineering industry. I think that only the organisations concerned can give the hon. Member information as to the position of these negotiations. With regard to the second part of the question, I have no reason to suppose that the parties will not themselves be able to settle their problems for themselves.

Mr. Gallacher: Will it not be necessary for the Minister, in view of the developments in the industry, to pay attention to this question, and to ensure that the workers' committees in the factories shall have proper control?

Mr. Brown: There is a great belief in this country in responsible self-government, and it is important to know not only when to intervene but when not to intervene.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGE, BLAYDON.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men going to the Blaydon Employment Exchange for interview are being kept waiting an unreasonable time; and whether he will have inquiries made with a view to preventing such delay?

Mr. E. Brown: I have made inquiries and have been unable to find any ground for complaint on this account. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will make further inquiry.

Mr. Whiteley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two men who were asked to attend at the Exchange by appointment had to wait for two-and-a-quarter hours on a Friday, and that in another case a man who waited for two hours on Friday, had to go back again on the Saturday?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have particulars of these cases. As he knows, I am always willing to look into complaints.

AGRICULTURAL SCHEME (DURHAM).

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons under the agricultural insurance scheme in Durham county, and the number of such persons unemployed in the weeks beginning 15th and 22nd February and 7th March, respectively?

Mr. E. Brown: Estimates of the total numbers insured under the agricultural scheme, compiled on the normal basis, will not be available until after the general exchange of unemployment books which will begin in July next. The only figures so far available for each county are those showing the numbers of agricultural unemployment books issued up to the end of August, 1936, and these figures exclude private gardeners, who were brought into insurance as from 1st February, 1937. The approximate number of persons to whom agricultural unemployment books had been issued up to the end of August, 1936, by local offices of the Ministry of Labour situated in the County of Durham was 7,530. The number of persons insured under the Agricultural Scheme (excluding private gardeners) recorded as unemployed at 22nd February, 1937, at those offices was 609; corresponding figures are not available for 15th February and 7th March.

FOREIGN CINEMA TECHNICIANS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour whether applications have been made for the granting of permits to foreign cinema technicians to photograph the Coronation in technicolour; and, if so, how many have been granted?

Mr. E. Brown: One application has so far been received for a permit in respect of a foreign cinema technician specifically required for a technicolour film of the Coronation, and this is at present under consideration.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that there are over zoo competent British technicians out of work at the moment, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no foreign technicians will be granted permits to come into this country in order to film the Coronation, finless and until the present heavy number of unemployed men in this trade has been absorbed?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member may rest assured that I shall do my duty under the Acts.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman protect the interests of British workers in this trade?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that that is what the Act lays down.

Mr. Buchanan: Can the right hon. Gentleman also assure the House that he will not be too narrow-minded in this matter?

Mr. Brown: All the circumstances are always taken carefully into account.

Sir Percy Harris: Is there not a danger that if this policy is strictly applied by us, our own technicians may not be allowed to go to other countries?

Mr. Brown: I hope that hon. Members above the Gangway will take note of the consideration suggested by the hon. Baronet.

Mr. Lawson: May we assume that the right hon. Gentleman will take all relevant considerations into account?

Mr. Brown: Yes, just as the hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour how many permits have been granted to foreign cinema technicians during this year?

Mr. Brown: Five permits have been granted for foreign cinema technicians during January and February of this year.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to understand that further permits will be granted?

Mr. Brown: It will depend entirely upon the merits of each case.

Mr. Day: How long will these permits last?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member puts down that question I will give him an answer.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Minister of Labour how many domestic service training centres are in existence; their total capacity; and the numbers attending at the present time?

Mr. E. Brown: There are seven residential and 3o non-residential domestic training centres administered by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment, the former being situated in areas which afford good opportunities for placing those trained in domestic employment after training, and the latter in areas where unemployment is heavy. The training course normally lasts 13 weeks, or longer for younger girls. The girls are readily placed in approved employment, and are provided with a free outfit. The centres provide a total of 1,284 training places of which 984 were filled on 6th March. There is considerable difficulty in finding sufficient recruits, and this is attributed partly to unwillingness to enter domestic service when opportunities of obtaining industrial employment seem favourable, and partly to ignorance of the opportunities which this scheme offers. I should welcome any assistance in making the scheme better known.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are there any training centres for mistresses where they can be taught to treat their maids properly?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will give me the advantage of any experience he may have in this matter.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of domestic servants in Warwickshire; whether he will


consider taking more effective steps to promote the migration of suitable persons from areas where many are unemployed; and whether he will consider, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, giving temporarily greater facilities for the employment of suitable alien immigrants?

Mr. Brown: I have no information to indicate that the difficulty in securing domestic servants is greater in Warwickshire than elsewhere. The Employment Exchanges take active steps to fill the vacancies notified to them. I should, however, point out that the great majority of the women registered as unemployed are ordinarily engaged in industrial occupations or are unsuited by reason of their age, training and other circumstances for domestic service. The opportunities afforded by domestic service are brought to the notice of all unemployed women on the registers who appear suitable, and training is provided through the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment for women who might be suitable but lack the necessary experience. Permits for the employment of foreign women domestics in private households are granted in cases where the conditions of employment are not below accepted standards, and it is clear that, after making all reasonable efforts, the employer cannot get suitable British workers.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the normal interval of time between an application for a permit for an alien immigrant to work in this country and the notification of the Ministry's decision?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put the question down, I will try to give him a mean answer. [Laughter.] Hon. Members will be aware that there are many meanings in the dictionary of the word "mean." The difference would, of course, depend on the circumstances.

Mr. T. Williams: What would the right hon. Gentleman regard as reasonable conditions for female labour before he would allow permits for immigrants?

Mr. Brown: I could not say in answer to a supplementary question.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons in the coal mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain as at the last convenient date?

Mr. E. Brown: At 22nd February, 1937, there were 137,067 insured persons, aged 14–64, in the coal mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.

Mr. Day: In view of the large number of unemployed, can the Minister say how the Government propose to deal with the situation?

Mr. Brown: I may point out to the hon. Member that, on 20th February, 1936, the number was 189,687, while, on 20th February, 1933, it was 299,646.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any Government proposal which is calculated to absorb these unemployed?

Mr. Brown: The general policy of the Government has resulted, as I have already indicated, in a great improvement.

Mr. James Griffiths: If a miner secures temporary employment in some other occupation is he thereafter still counted as a miner, or is he classified as some other kind of workman?

Mr. Brown: The classification would depend largely on how long the temporary employment had lasted.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reduction to which he refers is scarcely equal to the death-rate, and the rate at which people are removed from the register for other causes?

Mr. Brown: I should not accept that. There are other factors, but if the hon. Member wants to know how many people are employed in the industry, I can give him the answer.

JUVENILES (HOSTELS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether all hostels for juveniles are open to inspection by the Ministry and subject to a licence from the Ministry?

Mr. E. Brown: All hostels used for the accommodation of juveniles transferred to employment away from home under the Ministry of Labour juvenile transference scheme are open to inspection by the Ministry and are periodically inspected. Hostels are not subject to a licence from the Ministry, and the Ministry is not concerned with hostels


other than those accommodating juveniles transferred under the transference scheme.

Mr. Parker: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable discontent about the conditions in some of the hostels?

Mr. Brown: I certainly am not aware of that, and if the hon. Member has any information to that effect, I shall be glad to have it. There has been very regular and systematic inspection in connection with these hostels and a vast amount of voluntary work has been done. I myself have visited them, and I am surprised to hear that there is discontent with the conditions.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does the Ministry inspect private houses to which boys are sent and about which I have had some serious complaints; and may I, particularly, ask whether the Minister has investigated complaints from Northamptonshire about boys who are working in the factories there not being allowed at all into their rooms except for about three-quarters of an hour in the evening, and being told that they must stay out until 10 o'clock, which means that they have no home at all when they leave their own homes?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman has information to this effect, surely it is his duty to bring it to the notice of the Ministry, and I hope he will do so. It may be, of course, that the people to whom he is referring have nothing whatever to do with the transference scheme, and are people who have gone from their own homes without our knowledge.

COAL ALLOWANCES (PONTEFRACT).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent additional allowances for coal during this winter have been granted to recipients of unemployment assistance in the area covered by the Pontefract office?

Mr. E. Brown: The Unemployment Assistance Regulations do not provide specifically for coal allowances but in individual cases where there is special need a suitable adjustment of the assessment is made. In so far as assessments are affected by the "Standstill" the allowances paid take into account the practice of the local authority in administering

transitional payments. I am informed, however, that under the practice of the local authority for the Pontefract area it was very exceptional to grant coal allowances.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether on and after the second appointed day unemployed men who have received the coal allowance from the public assistance authority will, when they are transferred to the Board, continue to receive it.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will look at the middle part of my answer, he will find that it answers his question.

Mr. T. Smith: Is it not a fact that it was the practice of the West Riding County Council to grant coal allowances during the winter months?

Mr. Brown: I have answered the question which was addressed to me.

INDUSTRIAL STATISTICS.

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give for each of the years since 1931 the proportion of persons engaged in each industry as shown for the earlier years on page 113 of the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom?

Mr. E. Brown: The statistics referred to are compiled from information obtained at the censuses of population. The last census was taken in 193r, and corresponding statistics are consequently not available for any later year

Mr. Wilson: Is then anything whatever to indicate the proportions in the later period?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, there could not be any authoritative estimate given in this way.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, STAFFORDSHIRE (WAGES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that all firms in South Staffordshire holding Government contracts are paying the standard rates of wages generally, and in particular those for unskilled labourers, to which his attention has already been directed?

Mr. E. Brown: If the hon. Member would indicate any case in which there is ground for thinking that fair wages conditions are not being observed, the matter would, of course, be examined by the Department concerned.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Labour how many branch managers employed by the Ministry of Labour do not get holidays with pay?

Mr. E. Brown: Branch managers are engaged on a part-time basis and the terms of their engagement do not include provision for holidays with pay.

Mr. T. Williams: What qualifies a man for an annual holiday with pay? Does it depend on length of service?

Mr. Brown: It is not a question of length of service but of a part-time basis and, as the hon. Member knows, that differs according to the local circumstances, because one branch is not necessarily open for the same number of days per week or per month as another branch. That is one of the problems which will come before the committee of inquiry which is to be set up.

Mr. Williams: Can the Minister give us any idea of how many part-time branch managers he has who are not established civil servants?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member puts that question down I will give him the answer.

Mr. Rowson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many are involved in this arrangement?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state the names of the members of the committee to inquire into the question of holidays with pay; and when they will commence their duties?

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state the membership of the committee to consider the question of holidays with pay for employed persons and the date of the first sitting?

Mr. Brown: I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter very shortly.

OMNIBUS SERVICE, SCOTLAND (DISPUTE).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has anything to report on the dispute which has resulted in the general strike of motor-omnibus drivers in Scotland?

Mr. E. Brown: The position is that negotiations on the wages and conditions of employment cannot take place until work has been resumed. It is for the workpeople themselves to decide whether they wish to have their conditions settled and maintained by collective agreement between the union to which they belong and the company, and there is no useful action that I can take. I greatly regret both the inconvenience which is being caused to other workpeople and to the public generally, and the harm done to the whole system of collective agreements by the continuance of this unconstitutional stoppage of work.

Mr. Stewart: Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge when work is likely to be resumed in view of tentative reports that one sees in the Press?

Mr. Brown: I prefer to add nothing to the answer I have given.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disgracefully low wages that are being paid to these operators?

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister approve of the attitude of the employers in this case when they refuse to negotiate until work is resumed?

Mr. Brown: It is not so. The trouble is not between the unions and the company. It is because action has been taken against the advice of the leaders of the unions.

Mr. McGovern: How long have the negotiations for increases of wages been going on, and is the Minister aware that the men were compelled to take strike action?

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (40-HOUR WEEK).

Mr. W. A. Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether any instructions have been given to the British delegation to the World Textile Conference at Washington as to their attitude in the


event of a 40-hour week in the textile industry being proposed by some other delegation?

Mr. E. Brown: The conference at Washington in April is a technical conference, the object of which is to consider all those aspects of the textile industry which directly or indirectly may have a bearing on the improvement of social conditions in the industry. The question of adopting a convention for a 40-hour week for the industry is to be considered at the annual conference of the International Labour Organisation in June. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the latter question was stated in my speech at the annual conference last year.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister and the Government bear in mind what happened at the 48-hour Convention in Washington in 1919, when, in spite of our adherence to it then, we have never operated it; and will the same unsympathetic attitude be taken with regard to the 40-hour week?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the basis and purpose of this conference. It is a technical conference, and is not for the purpose of adopting conventions.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to American information we have in our possession, a resolution is being staged on the 4o-hour week, and will the Government's representative be authorised to oppose that resolution or to support it?

Mr. Brown: I have pointed out that this conference is technical, and is not for the purpose of adopting conventions.

WORKERS' PENSIONS SCHEMES.

Mr. Quibell: asked the Minister of Labour how many industrial and occupational undertakings in the country have pensions schemes of their own in operation; how many employes are affected by such schemes; and what are the amounts of pensions received and the contributions made by the employes to the scheme or schemes, and the age at which the contributor is entitled to benefit?

Mr. Silverman: asked the Minister of Labour whether any figures are available showing the extent to which provision exists for the superannuation of employed persons; and whether he will state such figures as are in his possession?

Mr. E. Brown: I have recently instituted inquiries in order to obtain information on this subject, but I am not yet in a position to furnish the particulars desired.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down this question to the Minister of Health and was informed that certain information was available and that if I would put down the question again, that information would be supplied. I have now put it to the right hon. Gentleman who replies that I cannot have the figures.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member misunderstands the scope of this inquiry. I sent out schedules to over 3,000 employers. I have received over 2,800 returns, and they are being tabulated. The form is a comprehensive one, and I do not expect to get the tabulating finished before the end of the summer.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me some indication when I may put another question down?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

IAR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to local authorities of the air raid precautions designed by the Home Office to be carried out by them; whether it is intended that the cost should fall upon the rates; and, if not, what contribution towards the cost it is proposed should be provided out of the Home Office Vote?

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Home Secretary what proportion of the expenditure incurred by county councils in the anti-air raid precautions will be borne by the State?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The whole question of the cost of air raid precautions together with that of the


financial responsibility for their execution is at present under active examination. In these circumstances my hon. Friend will understand that I am not yet in a position to make a statement in the matter.

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consult with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, the Air Ministry, and the Ministry of Transport with a view to considering plans for the building of underground air raid shelters in London and elsewhere, which in times of peace can be used as permanent parking centres, and so encourage the early construction of such conveniences under the Ribbon Development Act, 1935.

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Parker) on 17th February. I hope to be in a position to make information on the subject available shortly.

Captain Evans: Is it the particular suggestion contained in the question which is under review, or are the Government considering the erection of air raid shelters as such?

Mr. Lloyd: Both suggestions are under consideration, and in particular that referred to in the question.

UJVENILE OFFENDERS (BIRCHING).

Mr. Muff: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the public concern caused by the action of various magistrates in ordering the birching of young boys for minor offences; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the desirability of abolishing this form of punishment?

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the number of cases during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date in which boys under the age of 14 years have been sentenced to be birched and the sentences carried out; also particulars of the police authorities that keep birches soaked and ready to carry out these sentences; and will he consider introducing legislation to abolish child birching?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): There were 164 cases of this punishment being

ordered in juvenile courts in 1936 and 218 cases in 1935. This is a subject on which many people have strong views on one side or the other and in which the practice of different juvenile courts differs widely. I have, therefore, decided to appoint a small Departmental Committee to consider the whole matter. If, however, the report of such a committee is to be of value, its members must be selected with a view to securing that they approach the subject with an open mind, and I shall not be able to make an announcement of the composition of the committee without full consideration of the appropriate personnel.

Mr. Thorne: Do not put me on that committee, because I have not an open mind.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the committee to the wisdom of Solomon, who said that if you spare the rod you spoil the child? Was he a muff?

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary the proportion of juvenile offenders per 100,000 of the population during 1935 and 1936, respectively?

Sir J. Simon: The number of children and young persons found guilty of indictable offences per 100,000 of the estimated population between the ages of 10 and 17 was 440 in 1934, and 535 in 1935. The figures for 1936 are not yet available.

OYUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Walkden: asked the Home Secretary whether he has given consideration to the report of the Departmental Committee on the Hours of Employment of Young Persons in unregulated occupations; and whether he intends to give legislative effect to the Committee's recommendations?

Mr. Denman: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the statement in the report of the Committee on Hours of Employment of Young Persons in unregulated occupations that it is essential that immediate steps should be taken to afford statutory protection to such young persons; whether he will introduce legislation without unnecessary delay; and whether, in particular, he will


adopt the recommendation to extend the current Factories Bill so as to include young persons employed in connection with factories, docks and warehouses?

Sir J. Simon: The report of the Committee, which was published only a week ago, is now under careful consideration, but I regret that I am not in a position at present to make any statement.

Mr. Denman: Can my right hon. Friend answer the last part of my question, referring to the current Factories Bill? Are they making up their minds rapidly on that point?

Sir J. Simon: I agree that it would be useful to get a decision in time for the present Factories Bill, but the report is a most important one, it was published only last week and it must be examined thoroughly.

Mr. Markham: asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet considered the report of the Departmental Committee on the Hours of Employment of Young Persons in certain unorganised occupations; whether the principal recommendations of the Committee could be implemented by by-laws made by local authorities under Section 19 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and Section 45 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932; and whether, as these sections cannot become operative until a date appointed by order of the Secretary of State, he now proposes to issue this order?

Sir J. Simon: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to Questions 23 and 35. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in connection with a man who was killed at the Kent Cement Works, Stone, near Dartford, Kent; and what was the cause of the accident?

Sir J. Simon: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to an accident which occurred at the Kent Cement Works, Greenhithe (not Stone), on 9th March. According to the report of the evidence

given at the inquest, this accident was due to the fact that a number of railway wagons had been left on a slight incline when insufficiently braked.

Mr. Thorne: Who was responsible for the defective brakes?

Sir J. Simon: It is not that the brakes were defective, but that they had not been put on sufficiently well.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in connection with a man who was killed at Jackson's Printing Works, Church Street, Salford, Lancashire; and whether he is aware of an added rider made by the jury to their verdict?

Sir J. Simon: I have had before me an account of the proceedings at the inquest in this sad case. The deceased, who was working in a yard on the premises referred to, took hold of an electrically charged broken wire trailing on the ground and the shock killed him.

Mr. Thorne: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice the jury's rider?

Sir J. Simon: indicated assent.

THE CORONATION.

Mr. Liddell: asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been made as to the limits of the closed areas and the routes and hours for vehicular traffic in London on Coronation Day and on the other days in Coronation week; and whether this decision will be disclosed at an early date in order that vehicle owners and drivers and contractors who are now booking parties to see the Coronation procession or view the street decorations may know what routes and stopping places they will be able to use?

Sir J. Simon: Information as to the general traffic arrangements on Coronation Day, 12th May, has already been given through the Press. Similar announcements as to the operation of motor coaches during the period of the celebrations and as to the closing of streets during the hours of floodlighting will shortly be made by the Commissioner. The necessary arrangements have already been discussed by the Commissioner with the principal coach operators concerned.

47 and 48. Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Lord President of the Council (1) whether, in the allocation of seats to view the Coronation procession, other organisations representative of retail traders will receive equal treatment with the co-operative societies proportional to the number of their shops and their commercial activities;
(2) why, in the allocation of seats to view the Coronation procession, the co-operative societies have been included in Group 12, organisations representative of labour, and not in Group 9, associations of persons engaged in commerce?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The cooperative movement has been included in Group 12 as being one of the largest organisations of the manual workers in this country. It has been the intention all along that the seats allotted to co-operative societies should be occupied by the ordinary members of the societies; these are very numerous and include a large number of housewives. It will, therefore, be obvious that it would be quite inappropriate to provide for these seats out of the allocation to Group 9, and that it would not be relevant to suggest that the allocation to organisations representative of retail traders should be on a proportional basis. I would like to add that my hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that the claims of retailers have not been overlooked.

Sir A. Knox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report that the very large number of 1,700 seats has been allotted to the co-operative societies; and in view of the fact that half the price of those seats is borne by the taxpayers would it not be fairer, in the public interest, to publish the allocation of seats, so that everybody would know what the system is?

Mr. MacDonald: The price of these seats is the same to everybody, to my hon. and gallant Friend, to myself and to everybody who is entitled to apply for them. On the matter of publishing the figures, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to an unstarred question last week.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving a proportionate number of seats to the employes of the big stores of the country?

Sir A. Knox: Will they get proportionately the same number, or are we to understand that some of the cooperative societies are allotted seats because of their political activities?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the second part of the question is certainly not. The rule not to take such considerations into account was laid down at the very beginning of our work, and I think I can say that it has been honestly and carefully observed wherever possible, although sometimes it was difficult to do so. But I can give an assurance that the Privy Council Committee which has been dealing with the matter has worked hard and done its best to be fair.

Dr. Leech: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that during Coronation week many organisations and societies are having consideration shown to their members by way of increased allowances, he has considered the question of similar allowances being granted to old age pensioners whose only means of support is their pensions allowance?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the irth March to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Denville) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether arrangements can be made for schoolchildren to receive milk when they are attending celebrations in connection with Their Majesties' Coronation, having regard to the fact that the children will not assemble in the schools on those days?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Yes, Sit. Where "the necessary arrangements can be made locally for milk which would normally be consumed in the schools to be supplied to children assembled under proper supervision in connection with the Coronation celebrations, such arrangements will be regarded by the Milk Marketing Board and by my Department as coming within the scope of the Milk-in-Schools Scheme. In addition, I understand that the Milk Marketing Board are arranging to supply milk free of charge to some 40,000 London school children who will be assembled on the Embankment to witness the Coronation procession.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. Friend send a copy of this answer to the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten)?

OXFORD PRISON (OFFICERS, DISMISSALS).

Mr. Montague: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the two prison officers who were dismissed at Oxford, and the editor of the prison officers' magazine, have given an undertaking that if an independent committee of inquiry is appointed to consider the cases the parties concerned will accept beforehand the findings of the committee; and will he now appoint a committee?

Sir J. Simon: This case has already been fully and repeatedly considered, and I am unable to reopen it.

Mr. Montague: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling there is in the prison service about this matter? The request is for an independent inquiry, and cannot he see his way to grant that perfectly reasonable request?

Sir J. Simon: I know that the hon. Member has taken a special interest in this matter, because I gave him a long answer last month. I can only repeat that the matter has been examined most thoroughly from every point of view, and I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to certain films portraying scenes of horror now on exhibition in London; whether he is aware that neither the names nor the normal advertisements of such films, by which most people select their entertainment, give any indication of their character; and whether, for the sake of sensitive or nervous people and children who are upset by such films and of healthy people who have a natural repugnance to them, he will represent to the trade that such films should be marked with an H or other indication that they portray scenes of horror?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. Member will supply me with further information concerning the films

to which he is referring and the cinemas at which they are being shown, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Gerro Jones: I will send the information to the right hon. Gentleman.

APPROVED SCHOOLS.

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary the number of approved schools, the number of children and young persons provided for, the number of teachers, and the total expenditure for the year 1930 and for each successive year to date?

Sir J. Simon: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the Hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Return showing the number of Approved Schools, the number of children and young persons in the Schools under Order of Court at 3oth September of each year, and the net cost as met from Exchequer grants.

Year.
Number of Schools at 30th September.
Number of Children and young persons in the Schools under Order of Court at 30th September.
Net Exchequer Grants. (a)





£


1930–1
85
6,119
209,286


1931–2
84
6,228
202,950


1932–3
81
6,360
194,506


1933–4
81
6,483
197,230


1934–5
85
6,816
214,497


1935–6
87
7,280
256,796

(a) The cost of maintaining children and young persons sent to Approved Schools is shared equally between the Exchequer and the Local Authorities, and during the above mentioned periods Local Authorities have borne approximately the same expenditure.

I regret that I am unable to give particulars regarding the number of teachers employed in the schools during these years.

REMAND HOMES.

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary the number of remand homes in 1930 and for each successive year to date?

Sir J. Simon: Remand homes established under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, by local authorities numbered 25, 29 and 31 in 1934, 1935 and 1936 respectively. In addition about 35 private houses and 65 voluntary homes are used for remand purposes by arrangement with the occupiers.

POLICE INQUIRIES.

Mr. Naylor: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that recently the police called at the place of work of a member of the Printing Machine Managers' Trade Society, and made inquiries as to the man's wages, hours of work, and general character; that the Commissioner of Police has since admitted that the allegations against the man were unfounded; what was the nature of these allegations; and whether he will give instructions that in such cases the police should not prejudice a man's employment by making inquiries at his place of work?

Sir J. Simon: I have received a report from the Commissioner of Police, and am informed that there is no ground for the suggestion that the police made inquiries as to the man's general character or made any allegations against him, or that the Commissioner has since admitted that such allegations were unfounded. The police were at pains not to prejudice the man's position, and the Commissioner has in fact received an assurance from the man's employers that the police inquiries have not in any way prejudiced his employment.

Mr. Naylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the police officer went to the man's employers instead of to his private address, and say whether such action has his approval?

Sir J. Simon: I think the reason was that what the police wanted to ascertain was where he was employed, and there is no harm in that. I must point out to the hon. Member that I not infrequently get complaints that the police go to people's private houses rather than where they work.

Mr. Naylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of inquiries being made at the place where the man works; or would his Department favour instructions being given to police officers that when they have to make inquiries for any reason whatever they should make them at a man's private address, and not at his place of employment?

Sir J. Simon: I think it really must depend upon circumstances in each case. I have made inquiries, and am quite satisfied that the police were discharging their duty in a perfectly proper manner, and I am sure that no harm has been done.

NATIONAL MUSEUMS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. Markham: asked the President of the Board of Education what sums are allowed to the various national museums for travelling expenses; and whether the estimated expenses under this head permit officers of these institutions to maintain adequate contact with provincial and foreign museums?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The sums allotted to travelling expenses in the museums under the control of my Department, namely, the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums, vary slightly from year to year, and are generally of the order of £1,000 per annum. I am satisfied that the sums allotted suffice in normal circumstances to enable museum officers to maintain adequate contact with provincial and foreign museums.

Mr. Markham: Can the President of the Board of Education say how much of this expenditure is devoted to normal travelling expenses, and how much is available to allow officers to pay visits to provincial and foreign museums?

Mr. Stanley: I could only answer that question if the hon. Member were to put it down.

FREE MEALS (SCHOOL CHILDREN, COUNTY DURHAM).

Mr. Sexton: asked the President of the Board of Education how many free meals were granted in 1936, and how many in January and February, 1937, to pupils attending elementary and secondary schools in County Durham; and how many of such pupils received solid meals and milk meals, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that I have no information about the number of children receiving free meals in secondary schools, as it is often the practice to give maintenance allowances which may cover, among other expenses, the cost of school dinners. With regard to elementary schools, as the answer contains a table with a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

DURHAM.


Provision of Free Meals in Public Elementary Schools.


Local Education Authority.
Calendar Year, 1936.
Year ended 31st March, 1936.*
January, 1937.
February, 1937.


Number of free meals provided.
Number of children receiving free solid meals.
Number of children receiving free milk meals.
Number of free meals provided.
Number of children receiving free solid meals.
Number of children receiving free milk meals.
Number of free meals provided.
Number of children receiving free solid meals.
Number of children receiving free milk meals.


Durham County
…
8,774.518
—
25,218
828,727
—
27,941
889,777
—
28,880


Durham Borough
…
51,296
Free meals were not provided until April, 1936.
6,534
—
346
†
†
†


Hartlepool
…
68,084
—
385
4,606
—
312
6,352
—
354


Jarrow
…
211,962
358
401
32,184
237
1,759
41,044
244
1,906


Stockton-on-Tees
…
272,816
649
1,555
19,154
259
1,021
21,073
261
992


Felling
…
78,367
413
—
5,876
331
—
5,996
323
—


Hebburn
…
112,401
610
—
9,762
471
—
9,765
488
—


Darlington
…
226,294
—
700
16,144
—
635
20,025
—
668


Gateshead
…
540,240
803
2,034
50,046
462
2,240
57,435
467
2,280


South Shields
…
461,832
2,059
1,323
38,193
878
997
38,538
871
1,013


Sunderland
…
696,647
1,331
1,973
62,552
797
2,522
†
†
†


West Hartlepool
…
125,657
—
501
12,069
—
631
†
†
†


Totals
…
11,620,114
6,223
34,090
1,085,847
3,435
38,404
1,090,005
2,654
36,093



* Figures showing the number of children receiving free meals are not available for the calendar year.





† Figures not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

JUVENILE NIGHT WORKERS.

Mr. Denman: asked the Minister of Health whether he has or will obtain from approved societies any information as to the effect of nightwork in factories on the health or physique of young persons either at the time or in subsequent life?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I regret that I have not the information desired by my hon. Friend, and the records of approved societies do not contain the necessary material from which the information could be obtained.

INFLUENZA AND COMMON COLD.

Mr. Lees-Jones: asked the Minister of Health the number of deaths from influenza which have taken place in Great Britain during the 12 months ended February, 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: The number of deaths assigned to influenza which took place in England and Wales during the 12 months to the end of February, 1935, was 5,354. The corresponding figures for the years ending February, 1936, and February, 1937, are not yet available. Any question relating to deaths in Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Markham: Is there any reason why these statistics should be 15 months in arrear?

Sir K. Wood: I could give a certain amount of information on this matter to anyone who desires to have it. We give a special weekly return covering 122 great towns. Perhaps that would be sufficient for my hon. Friend and I should be glad to send it to him, and to any other hon. Member who would like to have it.

45 and 46. Mr. Lees-Jones: asked the Lord President of the Council (1) over what period experiments and research have been taking place, with the assistance of the Medical Research Council, towards finding a medium for the prevention and cure of the common cold and influenza; and what the cost has been to date;
(2) what progress has been made by, or under the aegis of the Medical Research Council within the past 12 months

towards finding a medium for the prevention and for the cure of the common cold and influenza?

Mr. R. MacDonald: Research on influenza and the common cold has been assisted by the Medical Research Council from time to time. In particular, the investigations into influenza which are now being made by the council's own staff at the National Institute for Medical Research have been in progress since 1933. An account of recent progress is given in the annual report of the Medical Research Council for the year 1935–36, presented to Parliament and published last Tuesday. During the past year there has been further confirmation from different parts of the world that the virus originally isolated at the National Institute for Medical Research in 1933 is the infective agent which causes epidemic influenza, and on this basis attempts to devise preventive measures are being continued. Substantial progress has been achieved by these scientists working in the service of the British Government, and there is considerable ground for hoping that a satisfactory means of producing at least temporary immunity will be evolved. Earlier methods of inoculation against influenza have been unsatisfactory, because they were not based on the accurate knowledge, which is now believed to be available, regarding the nature of the causative agent. The council are not at the moment supporting any direct attack upon the common cold, but the problems are closely related and an advance against the one disease is likely to assist attack on the other. A statement which has been made in the Press to the effect that the council have, as a matter of policy, abandoned work on the common cold is without foundation. It is not possible to state the cost of this investigation separately from that of other work involving the same personnel and equipment.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not the surest way to cure the common cold and influenza to reduce the Whisky Duty?

MATERNITY SERVICE.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has collected the necessary information of the


approximate cost of introducing legislation to provide a national maternity service covering the services of doctor, midwife, anaesthetic administration and nursing where necessary?

Sir K. Wood: No special investigation has been made recently into this subject, but certain information is available in the report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance (Cmd. 2596).

Mr. Day: Is it the intention of the Department to collect this information?

Sir K. Wood: I have said in my reply that certain information is available in the report of the Royal Commission, and perhaps the hon. Member might like to study it.

CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Health the number of women 6o years of age and under 65 who are the wives of pensioned men of 65 years and over, such men now receiving pensions under the National Health Act?

Sir K. Wood: The precise information asked for by the hon. Member is not available, but it is estimated that there are at present 140,000 wives of this class.

Mr. Sexton: In order that a number of these women shall not have to apply for public assistance, will the Minister give consideration to amending the Act so as to improve their lot?

Sir K. Wood: That is another question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the continued rise in the cost of living and the hardship caused thereby to aged persons, widows, and orphans dependent on their pensions, he will take steps to increase the amount of these pensions in proportion to the rise in the cost of living?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I regret that I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, and in fact I would remind him that the cost of living to-day is appreciably below what it was when the pensions and allowances to which he refers were fixed.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Lord President of the Council which countries will participate in the International Sugar Conference; what proportion of the world's sugar output is produced by those countries which will not be represented; and which of those represented support the production of sugar within their territory by artificial means?

Mr. R. MacDonald: Invitations have been or are to be addressed to 23 countries to participate in the proposed International Sugar Conference. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not able to say how many have at present accepted the invitation. The production of the countries invited amounts to approximately 90 per cent. of total world production. I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind in using the term "artificial means," but if it includes protective duties, State assistance in some form is received by producers in all these countries, with the exception of the Netherlands East Indies, Peru and San Domingo.

Following is the list:


Union of South Africa,
Italy,



Japan,


Australia,
Netherlands,


Belgium,
Peru,


Brazil,
Poland,


United Kingdom,
Portugal,


Canada,
San Domingo,


China,
United States of America,


Cuba,



Czechoslovakia,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,


France,



Germany,



Hungary,
Yugoslavia.


India,

OCTTAGES, SWANAGE (PROPOSED DEMOLITION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether, with regard to the proposal of the Ministry to sanction the demolition of old cottages round the millpond at Swanage, he will reconsider the matter with a view to securing the effective reconditioning of the cottages and the preservation of their picturesque amenities?

Sir K. Wood: This matter has not yet come before me for consideration. The position is as follows: Resolutions declaring five areas to be clearance areas in respect of property in the vicinity of the old mill-pond, Swanage, have recently been passed by the urban district council. When the orders have been made and submitted to me by the council for confirmation, any persons interested will have the right to enter objections and to appear or be represented at the public local inquiry which will be held by an inspector of my Department. The hon. Member can be quite sure that my decision on the orders will only be given after full consideration of all the evidence put before me, and that I shall not lose sight of the question of the preservation of amenities.

Mr. Sorensen: Although the Minister undoubtedly has strong sensibilities regarding this matter, has he received representations from the people in the locality pressing him to do something to preserve this particular amenity?

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister tell the House, when this question comes up for approval on the appropriate Vote, what progress has been made?

Sir K. Wood: There has first to be an inquiry. I have then to consider the evidence given at the inquiry and, of course, I do have regard to matters such as those put forward in the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman had representations from the local people?

Sir K. Wood: I will inquire.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS.

55 and 56. Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that the old pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary are a diminishing number and can barely exist on their low pensions; how much would it cost per annum to add 50 per cent. to those pensions; and, bearing in mind that these pensions would not be a permanent charge on the Treasury, will he consider whether in this Coronation year these old servants of the Crown might have this increase;
(2) whether he will furnish a statement to date showing the number of old pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary, namely: constables in receipt of a pension under £50 as against present-day pensions of £154; sergeants in receipt of a pension under £60 as against present-day pensions of £195; and head constables in receipt of a pension under £80 as against present-day pensions of £256?

Mr. Chamberlain: As the answer is a long one and contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Allen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea as to whether the answer is satisfactory?

Mr. Chamberlain: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will wait and see.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: In view of the magnificent record of these men, and of the hardships and disabilities under which they suffer, will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the request made in these questions?

Sir Ronald Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who went over to the Sinn Feiners were granted pensions by the Irish Free State Government on a better scale; and will he receive my hon. and gallant Friend and myself in order that we may put this case to him, so that the discreditable position with regard to these faithful servants of the Crown may be remedied?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the magnificent record of the miners, engineers and other workers of this country?

Following is the answer:

I assume that by "old pensioners" my hon. and gallant Friend means those pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired before 1st April, 1919, and who are accordingly within the scope of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, and that the several amounts are intended to refer to the basic pensions originally granted, ignoring the increases given under those Acts. On these assumptions the figures for which he asks in the second question are as follow:




Constables with a pension not exceeding £50 per annum
947


Sergeants with a pension not exceeding £60 per annum
926


Head Constables with a pension not exceeding £80 per annum
104

In addition there are 69 constables, 146 sergeants and 26 head constables who are in receipt of basic pensions exceeding £50, £60 and £80 per annum respectively.

As regards the first part of the first question, I am, of course, aware that the number of these pensioners diminishes with the passage of time but, as shown above, it is still considerable.

As regards the second part, the original pensions have been increased under the above Acts at a total annual cost of £65,000 by the following average percentages:



Per cent.


Constables
56


Sergeants
45


Head Constables
31


while there has been a fall in the cost of living since these pensions were last increased in 1924.

I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting a further increase of 5o per cent. on the amounts actually paid at present. The immediate cost of this proposal would be approximately £80,000 per annum. As I have previously pointed out, however, such a concession could not be confined to Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners, and the total cost of adopting what I understand to be my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal would therefore be very much more than £8o,000 per annum. Successive Governments have repeatedly stated that they could not undertake further legislation to amend the Pensions (Increase) Acts, and the present Government are unable to reopen that decision.

RESTAURANTS (THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the proposed increase in the number of restaurants giving a full theatrical performance, e.g., the London Casino; and whether he is prepared to see that these restaurants pay Entertainments Duty on the same scale as the ordinary theatre?

Mr. Chamberlain: The liability of the London Casino to Entertainments Duty is the subject of legal proceedings which are now pending.

METALS (PRICES).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the demands of the armament programme of His Majesty's Government and the manipulations of speculators, the prices of iron, steel and nonferrous metals are still rising; and what steps he is taking to check such rise in price?

Mr. Chamberlain: The position is being carefully watched, but the hon. Member attaches an exaggerated importance to the demands of the armaments programme of His Majesty's Government. These are only a part of the total British demand, and that, in turn, is a small fraction of the world demand. The fundamental cause of the rise in price of these commodities is neither armaments nor speculation, but the rapid progress towards economic recovery over a large part of the world.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Chancellor suggest that the fact that the price of copper bars has increased from £48 to £109 per ton is due to the cause that he has mentioned? Is he aware, at any rate, that many manufacturers in the Midlands are finding that this increased price handicaps them in their home and export trade?

Mr. Chamberlain: I do not think that that is inconsistent with what I said. I said that the fundamental cause was the general recovery. The hon. Member will no doubt have in mind the fact that prices had fallen, in consequence of the depression, to a level far below that at which they were in previous years.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of copper has nearly doubled in two months?

IMPORT DUTIES (GERMAN GOODS).

Mr. Louis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the announcement that German manufacturers are granted a subsidy up to 35 per cent. on export goods; and whether this fact is taken into consideration in assessing any duty which


may be imposed in this country on imports of German manufacture?

Mr. Chamberlain: The available information regarding export subsidies granted to German manufacturers is contained in the report issued by the Department of Overseas Trade entitled "Economic Conditions in Germany." The value for the purpose of the charge of duty ad valorem is the price the goods would fetch on importation into this country under the conditions specified in Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1935, and there is, of course, no discrimination against goods imported from Germany.

CIVIL SERVANTS (INVESTMENTS).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there are any specific rules restricting investment or speculation by civil servants; and, if so, whether such rules make any reference to the shares of armament concerns, or other concerns largely affected by their contractual relations with Government Departments?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The principles regulating the conduct of civil servants in this and cognate matters are laid down in a Treasury Circular dated 13th March, 1928, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to lay down more precise regulations in amplification of these principles, as their application must necessarily vary according to the position, the Department and the work of the officer concerned.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the Circular make any specific reference to speculation in armament shares; and, if not, will the Financial Secretary state explicitly whether he considers that such speculation would be compatible with the fastidious standard which is generally maintained in the Civil Service?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Perhaps the hon. Member will study the Circular which I am sending him, and which is a long one. Afterwards, if he wishes to follow the matter up, I shall be glad to answer any questions.

OGVERNMENT EMPLOYES (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of

annual or other holidays given to the Government employés?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Civil servants are eligible for annual leave for periods which vary according to the grade or rank in which they are serving, and (in certain cases) to the length of service A summary of the position is given in an Appendix to Part I of the Minutes of Evidence of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (1929–31), and I will send the hon. Member a copy of this summary with any necessary amendments to bring it up to date.

Mr. Thorne: Will the information that is being sent to me include dockyard workers and other employés in Government Departments?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The information which I am sending to the hon. Member will cover as far as possible all Government employés.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to assist his health campaign, he will take steps to secure that money spent out of income on illness and con valescence is exempted from Income Tax?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mrs. Tate: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend any evidence that goes to prove that money spent on fees to doctors and surgeons in this country always and necessarily contributes to health?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of people engaged in the poultry farming industry who have been forced out of the business during the past six months owing to the bad state of the industry?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have no information as to changes in the number of people engaged in the poultry industry during the last six months.

Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if he made an inquiry on the lines suggested in the question, it would disclose a very grave state of affairs?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: In view, of the condition of this industry, would it not be worth while to make some inquiry?

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that in every branch of agriculture there is a certain amount of flotsam and jetsam to be found?

Mr. Morrison: The information I am given is that at the present time the imports of eggs are considerably below what they were at this time last year, and the price at the present moment is above what it has been in recent years.

Mr. Bossom: Can my right hon. Friend state how many poultry farmers have gone bankrupt in the last six months?

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increasingly grave situation in the poultry industry, he will take immediate action to assist the industry by preventing foreign eggs being sold in this country as new-laid, and, in so far as he is permitted by trade treaties, taking steps to prevent the excessive importation of foreign eggs?

Mr. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to recent replies, and in particular to those given to the hon. and gallant Members for the Chatham Division of Rochester (Captain Plugge) on 8th February, New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) and Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland - Troyte) on 16th February, and Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 22nd February, copies of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that every delay in coming to the assistance of this industry increases the hardships of those concerned, and makes recovery more difficult?

Captain Heilgers: Will my right hon. Friend inquire into the position in regard to foreign eggs which are brought into this country, put into cold storage, and then released as new-laid eggs?

Mr. Morrison: Every egg imported into this country has to bear upon its shell a mark indicating its country of origin.

Mr. Macquisten: Does it not wash off?

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Liddell: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the present insecure tenure under which many allotments are held is causing discontent among a large section of the community and that, unless some practical attempt is made to improve the position, interest in allotment cultivation will gradually die; and will he urge the Government to give the question of allotments a more prominent place in their schemes for social betterment and national defence?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware of complaints of lack of security by tenants of allotments on land which is rented for that purpose, more especially in areas that are in course of development. I am fully aware of the importance of this question but, as was explained in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on 13th July last, the practical remedy for insecurity of tenure is the purchase of the land either by allotment associations or by local authorities. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government will bear in mind the question of allotments in considering schemes for social betterment and national defence.

MILK PRODUCTION.

Captain Heilgers: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cows in Great Britain in milk or in calf at the latest convenient date; their estimated production in gallons of milk; whether the gallonage represented by imported milk products is in excess of Home production; and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The number of cows and heifers in milk and of cows in calf on agricultural holdings of over one acre in Great Britain was 3,056,983 on 4th June, 1936. The production of milk (excluding milk fed to livestock) in the 12 months ended on that date is estimated at approximately 1,587 million gallons. Average imports of milk products into the United Kingdom in the years 1935 and 1936 were equivalent to approximately 2,877 million gallons of liquid milk, representing an excess of 1,290 million gallons over home production.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not this importation due to the fact that the operations of


the Milk Board have raised the price of fresh milk beyond the capacity of the people?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

FEEDING-STUFFS.

Captain Heilgers: asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of home-produced meat and milk is dependent on imported feeding-stuffs?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is estimated that imports constitute approximately 26 per cent. (on a starch equivalent basis) of the feeding-stuffs required by the livestock population of the United Kingdom. I regret that I am unable to give a separate figure for meat and dairy animals.

Captain Heilgers: asked the Minister of Agriculture the annual quantity of cereals and cereal by-products required for animal feeding-stuffs, and the proportion produced at home?

Mr. Morrison: The annual consumption of cereals and cereal by-products by animals in the United Kingdom is estimated at approximately 6,500,000 tons of starch equivalent, of which home production represents about one-third.

Captain Heilgers: Does not this quantity exceed the amount of flour, meat, milk, eggs, butter and cheese produced in this country for home consumption? Would it not be a great deal better if we produced more of these cereals at home?

Statement showing the estimated quantities and values of certain foodstuffs sold off farms in England and Wales in 1913–14 and 1935–36.


Description.
1913–14.
1935–36.


Quantity.
Value.
Quantity.
Value.






Thousand tons.
£ million.
Thousand tons.
£ million.


Wheat
…
…
…
1,139
8·5
893
5·2*


Potatoes
…
…
2,171
6·7
2,303
13·8


Meat
…
…
…
766
47·9
1,044
63·2†






Million gals.

Million gals.



Milk
…
…
…
988
36·5
1,414
56·4






Million.

Million.



Eggs
…
…
…
959
4·8
2,940
16·3


* Not including deficiency payments made by the Wheat Commission.


† Not including payments from the Cattle Fund,

80. Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any provisional instructions or questionnaire has

Mr. Morrison: I should require notice of that question, but I would point out that the answer that I have given excludes a very important feeding-stuff material, namely, grass.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state by means of an index figure or otherwise the relative productive capacity of the United Kingdom as regards foodstuffs in the years 1914 to 1936, respectively?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is no method of measuring the total productive capacity of agricultural land as distinguished from the total output. I am giving information relating to the output of home-produced foodstuffs in reply to the next question on the Paper.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that the producers are getting so priest-ridden by marketing boards that they are giving up working on the soil?

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total volume and value of home-produced foodstuffs in the years 1914 and 1936, respectively.

Mr. Morrison: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

been or will be issued to county councils with a view to ascertaining the steps which their agricultural committees are

prepared to take towards increasing the food supply of their localities as part of their measures of Defence?

Mr. Morrison: I do not contemplate the issue of any provisional instructions or questionnaire of the kind indicated by the hon. Member, and I would refer him to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on 11th March.

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will set up a Departmental Committee to investigate all the steps which were taken during the last War to increase the country's food supplies, with special consideration to the mistakes which were then made?

Mr. Morrison: The information referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is already available to the Government and is being taken into account in the Government's consideration of the problems of food production in time of war. I do not, therefore, think it necessary to set up a committee such as is suggested.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Are we to take it that the Government policy is not to increase the food supplies produced in this country?

Mr. Morrison: No, my hon. and gallant Friend must not think that.

Sir A. Knox: Is the Department doing anything to prepare for this eventuality, or only giving it consideration?

Mr. Morrison: The matter is receiving very careful consideration.

CHEMICAL FERTILISERS AND LIQUID FUEL (STORAGE).

76 and 77. Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether any provision is being made for the storage of such chemical fertilisers as can only be obtained from abroad, in view of the difficulty in time of war of obtaining sufficient quantities for agricultural purposes in this country;
(2) whether any provision is being made for the storage of liquid fuel for purposes of mechanised farming, in view of the difficulties which farmers would encounter in time of war in obtaining fuel for tractors, etc., in competition with the requirements of the Defence Services?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of these matters is fully appreciated and that they will not be overlooked.

FEN AREA (FLOODS).

Mr. Wilson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in other countries considerable assistance has been given to districts threatened with flooding by calling upon the skill and assistance of regimental engineers; and whether he will consider the advisability of the adoption of similar methods in this country?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware of the part played by military engineers in organising the flood defences in the valley of the Mississippi recently, but in this country the catchment boards have at their disposal engineers who are fully qualified to deal with their special problems. As regards additional labour and transport, if the responsible catchment board felt that their existing resources were inadequate, the Government would be ready to give any help in their power.

Mr. Muff: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the Yorkshire Catchment Board and give them a larger grant?

Mr. Wilson: Are we to understand that no assistance can be rendered to districts so seriously threatened?

Mr. Morrison: Everything that can be done is being done, but the only way in which you can deal with a situation of this kind is not by last minute efforts, however valuable they may be in an emergency, but by work commenced some time ago. The Ouse Catchment Board has been assisted very considerably by grants.

Mr. Attlee: Were not plans made to deal with flooding and everything made ready in 1931, and was it not neglected when this Government came into office?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. This Government has given a great deal of assistance.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night the Ouse Catchment Board broadcast for more workers all through the night, asking them to bring picks and shovels and lights? Would it not be better to obtain some labour from Mildenhall and the regimental engineers in the neighbourhood?

Mr. Morrison: I think there is a little misunderstanding about the position of Mildenhall. The real danger point is Welches Dam on the main River Ouse. That is remote from Mildenhall. You could not get much assistance from there very quickly. On the general question of local labour, what is wanted for these occasions is labour which can reach the spot very quickly. The Ouse Catchment Board were quite right to ask local inhabitants to come with picks and shovels.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it not a fact that the Minister's advisers visited the spot, and is it not also true that no request has been made by the catchment board which has been refused by the Minister?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly. I have been in touch with my officers on the spot during the whole time, and there is no request for assistance by the catchment board which has been refused. They have been given every assistance that they desired. I had a report at 12 o'clock to-day that the situation is now somewhat easier.

Captain Heilgers: Will my right hon. Friend consider enlisting the services of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) and other eminent engineers?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

BUDGET DATE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-day in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried, also the business for next week, and on what day the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget?

The Prime Minister: We desire to take to-day the Report stage of the Navy and Army Estimates and the Committee and remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping (Spanish Frontiers Observation) Bill [Lords]. The business for next week is as follows:
Monday:—Supply [4th Allotted Day]. Report stage of the Air Estimates and of any outstanding Estimates, as well as the Report stage of the necessary Ways and Means Resolutions. Consideration of the Iron and Steel Import Duty Order, if not previously disposed of, and Second Reading of the National Health Insurance Act (Amendment) Bill [Lords] from another place.
Tuesday:—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. A Debate will take place on land drainage, with special reference to the position in the Fen district.
Wednesday:—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill. A Debate will take place on profiteering and prices, particularly in relation to the rearmament programme.
As opportunity offers during the week, we shall take other business, including any Lords Amendments to Bills which may come from another place.
The House will meet at 11 o'clock in the morning on Thursday, 25th March, when we shall take the Motion for the Easter Adjournment.
The House will meet again after the Recess on Tuesday, 6th April. The business to be taken during that week will be announced later.
The Chancellor will open his Budget on Tuesday, 20th April.

Sir R. Ross: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the great difficulty experienced during the consideration of the three Services Estimates, the Committee stage being not reached at all in one case and it being so late in the other cases that no proper discussion could take place, the period of one day is sufficient, and whether the matter can be considered or examined before next year?

Sir P. Harris: I note that the Iron and Steel Import Duty proposals are to be put down for Monday evening. May we have an undertaking that, if they are not reached before, say, eight o'clock, they will be postponed until afterwards?

The Prime Minister: No, I must repeat what I said yesterday. We must wait and see how we get on. I assure hon. Members that there is no desire to be unreasonable, and we will wait and see how we get on.

Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question as to the adequacy of one day for Service Estimates can, at all events, be examined?

The Prime Minister: I really cannot answer a question about next year now. These questions are always under consideration, and I suggest most respectfully that my hon. Friend should put his question again in 12 months' time.

Mr. Stephen: Does the Prime Minister intend that we shall sit late, if necessary, to-night, in order to get the Merchant Shipping (Spanish Frontiers Observation) Bill?

The Prime Minister: I hope that it will not be necessary, but we must get that Bill to-morrow. It is a Bill of urgency.

Motion made, and Question put,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, the Report of the Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1936,

Vote A and Navy Supplementary Estimate; and of the Navy Excess, 1935; the Report of the Army Supplementary Estimate, 1936; and of the Army (Royal Ordnance Factories) Supplementary Estimate, 1936, and Business other than the Business of Supply, may be considered before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 123.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[3.51. p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Liddall, W. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Lindsay, K. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Duncan, J. A. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col, J, J.


Allan, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Dunglass, Lord
Lloyd, G. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon, L. C. M. S.
Ellis, Sir G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Loftus, P. C.


Apsley, Lord
Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Assheton, R.
Emrvs-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Errington, E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Soot. U.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Maodonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McKie, J. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Everard, W. L.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Findlay, Sir E.
Macquisten, F. A.



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Magnay, T.


Bernayt, R. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Birohall, Sir J. D.
Furness, S. N.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Blair, Sir R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Blinded, Sir J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Markham, S. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grattan Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morgan, R. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guest, Han. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S, (Cirencester)


Bull, B. B.
Guy, J. C. M.
Munro, P.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Nail, Sir J.


Butler, R. A.
Harbord, A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Hornoastle)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Carver, Major W. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cary, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Channon, H.
Holmes, J. S.
Pensonby, Col. C. E.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Pewnall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hopkinson, A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Radford, E. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rankin, Sir R.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hunter, T.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cranborne, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crooks, J. S.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cross, R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rowlands, G.


e Chair, S. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


De la Bère, R.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Runeiman, Rt. Hon. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leekie, J. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Despeneer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Donner, P. W.
Lees-Jones, J.
Salmoon, Sir I.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, E. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lewis, O.





Samuel, M. R. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Watt, G. S. H.


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Tate, Mavis C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wells, S. R.


Sassoon, Rt. Han. Sir P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. Padd., S.)
Wiskham, Lt.-Col. E, T. R.


Soott, Lord William
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Touche, G. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitshin)


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Train, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Somerset, T.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.
Wragg, H.


Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wakefield, W. W.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan



Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrendor, Sir V.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Waterhoust, Captain C.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, W. M.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barnes, A. J.
Hollins, A.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Hopkin, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cassells, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. Ince)
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
MoGovern, J.
Vlant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Walkdan, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Glbbins, J.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, G. D.
Price, M. P.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


First Resolution read a Second time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Defence Loans Bill, without Amendment.

Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from


Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Bill): Sir John Withers; and had appointed in substitution: Miss Rathbone.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY].

REPORT [11TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1937.

1. "That 112,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 895 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,181,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,978,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,093,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,174,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, I938."

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,386,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,309,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, and other Non-effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

Orders of the Day — NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936.

8. "That an additional number, not exceeding 1,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, be employed for the Sea Service, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions and at Royal Air Force Establishments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, beyond the number already provided in the Navy Estimates for the year."

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for expenditure not Provided for in the Navy Estimates for the year."

Orders of the Day — NAVY (EXCESS), 1935.

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1936."

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Navy Services, 1935, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services.
14,492
4
4
—
—
2,570
18
0


2
Victualling and Clothing
17,896
0
1
—
—
46,311
4
11


3
Medical Establishments and Services.
3,452
7
9
—
—
1,693
14
10


5
Educational Services
—
2,607
9
1
3,944
8
9
—


6
Scientific Services
—
—
3,202
2
10
2,432
0
3


7
Royal Naval Reserves
—
97
13
3
16,446
18
7
—


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:















Sec.1. Personnel
1,810
6
5
80
15
8
—
—



Sec.2. Matérial
55,603
18
4
—
—
111,596
6
6



Sec.3. Contract Work
40,998
0
2
—
—
2,232
10
9


9
Naval Armaments
—
—
23,050
4
4
15,137
9
6


10
Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
62,629
19
5
9,644
19
4
—
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
42,872
7
10
—
—
5,510
2
4


12
Admiralty Office
—
—
407
4
6
1,237
16
10


13
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.
—
—
18,027
7
1
479
12
8


14
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.
—
1,326
1
9
36,246
8
4
—


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.
2,437
13
0
—
—
126
1
5


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
22,315
12
10
—
—
—




264,508
10
2
13,756
19
1
101,324
14
5
189,327
18
0



Excess Vote
—
—
100
0
0
—




264,508
10
2
13,756
19
1
101,424
14
5
189,327
18
0




£278,265
9
3
£290,752
12
5






Net Surplus
£12,487
3
2

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.3 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: I wish to move to reduce the Vote by 1, 000 men.

Mr. Speaker: As I have already proposed the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," I cannot accept an Amendment. Had the hon. Member put an Amendment on the Paper, or given me notice that he wished to move one, I

would have allowed him to move it before I proposed the main question.

Mr. Hall: There is some confusion in understanding not so much Vote A as some of the other Votes, owing to the fact that there is such a very large Appropriation-in-Aid which is really not an Appropriation-in-Aid, but is an advance from the Defence Loan. Some reference has been made to this subject on Vote 10. Much time was given to the Vote on the general Estimate, and, as was pointed out, this Vote, like many others, shows a very large increase, an increase of no fewer than 11,000 men. It is quite


true that if ships are built we must have men to man them; otherwise the ships would be of very little use. As was explained by the First Lord, there are no fewer than 148 ships now under construction, and one can expect an increase in the number of personnel. But it is questionable whether the increase asked for is really warranted at the present time. Notwithstanding the fact that so many ships are under construction it is true to say that these larger ships will take some years to build, the cruisers from two to three years and the battleships from five to six years before they go into commission, and the question is whether these extra men are required at the present time. It must be remembered that these Estimates, compared with those of 1935, provide for an increase of no fewer than 18,000 officers and men, or an increase of no less than 20 per cent.
There are one or two matters upon which we would like a reply from the representatives of the Admiralty. They are matters which were raised in the Debate on the main Estimate, and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty promised that a reply would be given today. I am not going to deal at any length with the question of promotion from the lower deck, because that was dealt with on the main Estimate. It is not that we were in any way satisfied with the reply given by the Civil Lord, who dealt with the matter. He certainly did not indicate that, so far as the Board of Admiralty is concerned, it is likely to encourage promotion from the lower deck. The Civil Lord said that he did not think the numbers to be promoted would be great, and he added that he thought there was little or no desire for promotion from the lower deck. His statement was somewhat inconsistent with other statements which the Civil Lord made in the course of his speech, for he referred to the channels for recruitment into the Navy and mentioned that the Admiralty were pulling their recruits from nearly all of our educational establishments. He did go on to say that in his opinion the best avenue for promotion was through the warrant officer class. His colleague, the Financial Secretary, said that that was the easiest and the commonest way of promotion, and added that promotion from the warrant officer class was very

unpopular, for reasons which were given, and quite frankly he pointed out the difficulty.
At a time like this, when an expanding Navy provides for an increase of no fewer than 364 officers, one would have thought that if there was any difficulty the Admiralty would clear it away. If ever there was a time when changes should be made, that time is now. The same arguments will have to be used from this side of the House when the Estimates for 1938 are introduced, and probably the same reply will then be given by those who speak for the Admiralty. In the explanatory statement of the First Lord reference is made to the officers who are to be obtained by transfer from the Merchant Navy to the Supplementary List of the Royal Navy, but we have had no indication whatever as to the number of officers to be obtained by this transfer. Perhaps the First Lord will be able to give us that information?
One of the most alarming speeches I have heard for some time in this House was the speech of the Civil Lord with regard to entrants into the Cadet class at Dartmouth. I should have thought that he would have been the last person in the world to decry the educational changes which have taken place in this country during the last 20 or 25 years. It appears that it is only the Board of Admiralty which has not recognised those educational changes. The Board's method of recruiting into Dartmouth is as it was 50 or 100 years or generations ago. One must realise that changes have so popularised our system of education that persons are entering into professions and walks of life which were closed to them 4o or 50 years ago. I would that the educational changes which have taken place were recognised by the Admiralty. How many parents are there to-day who decide the careers of their children at 13½ years of age, which is the age at which cadets enter Dartmouth? Our system of elementary education is such that only a very small percentage of boys and girls have any idea at all, at 13 or 13½ years of age, what career they will take up. I have seen tremendous developments taking place in boys and girls after the age of 13. Boys and girls in the elementary schools who could not at that age obtain even a scholarship to a secondary school, have afterwards matriculated


at 15½ or before they were 16. Such a thing completely changes the outlook of young people as to the kind of career they will follow.
It does appear that the only persons who do not realise these tremendous changes, brought about very largely by an improved elementary educational system, by which an average of one out of 10 elementary school children are enabled to pass into the secondary schools, are the Board of Admiralty. It has so alarmed some of the authorities in this country that in the May Report a statement was made that some concern was felt because of the number of boys and girls who were passing from the secondary schools into the universities and taking up some of the higher positions in nearly every profession. I cannot understand the argument of the Civil Lord, which is, after all, the argument of the Board of Admiralty. Most of my colleagues on this side, if they had had the misfortune to have been born 30 years before they were born, would not be occupying the positions that they occupy at the present time. It is almost entirely the changes in our educational system which have enabled boys and girls from working-class homes to pass from elementary to secondary schools, and so to the universities, and to reach the top of the tree in nearly every profession in this country—every profession except the Navy.
No one can gainsay the fact that the system of entrance into Dartmouth is a class system. I doubt very much whether there is a boy in Dartmouth who has come from what may be regarded as a working-class home or elementary school. I had the very great privilege last year of sitting as a member of a committee for the selection of entrants into some of the higher branches of the Civil Service. I am not suggesting that they were any more important than the Navy, but a person entering that branch of the Civil Service was not considered before he was 21 years of age. A boy of 13½ years is incapable of deciding the career he will choose, and he has to depend on his parents. I think the age of entry into Dartmouth should be raised and that the officers once they are appointed should be retained rather than sent out sometimes when they are under 40 years of age.
Something on those lines should be done. There is no excuse for confining

this career to those who have provided, in the main, the officer class in the Navy for past generations. There is not very much criticism against the Navy; it is a question whether the system can be improved, and I think the Board of Admiralty should really examine the position again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) when he was First Lord discussed this matter with the superintendent at Dartmouth and also with the schoolmaster at Dartmouth, and had a Labour Government remained in office for a little longer it is more than likely that the system would have been changed, with the consent of the Board of Admiralty. Apparently those who succeeded my right hon. Friend did not consult the same experts, or cannot have given the same attention to this matter, otherwise there would not have been these justifiable complaints concerning this matter now. I hope it will not have to wait for a Labour Government to come into power before a change is made.
One thing which struck me in the Memorandum was the change in the system of welfare conferences, and I should like to compliment the First Lord and the Board on its extension. It is very desirable. I understand that the service conditions of the men can be reviewed from time to time. I understand, also, that not only those who serve on shore establishments but those who are serving in ships now have their committees, which, I trust are able to meet periodically to discuss and review any grievances. This I regard as most important work, and I hope the First Lord will tell us a little more about the work of these committees. I hope they are not too stereotyped or that they will become too stereotyped. Who presides, and what is the representation? Is the representation of the seamen left to the selection of the seamen themselves? Are all the representations which are made by these committees passed on to the Board of Admiralty, or are they vetoed by the captain of the ship or by the commanding officer? It is pleasing to know that about 4,000 requests have been received, and the Civil Lord in his statement on personnel mentioned that a few of the requests, very desirable ones, were granted, that they will not cost very much money, while at the same time will give a considerable amount of pleasure to


those who will be affected by the changes. May I suggest to the First Lord that there should be no delay in dealing with these requests? I have had a little experience in dealing with requests from bodies of workmen to their employers—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the actual Resolution before the House. It deals only with the numbers of officers and men of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Hall: I was dealing with a matter of vital importance to the men, and I suggest that it would affect the numbers who enter the Service.

Mr. Speaker: It is rather a round-about way of dealing with the matter. The Resolution clearly deals only with the number of men required.

Mr. Hall: The Vote provides for an increased number of 11,000 as compared with last year, and I was trying to point out that the Navy would get recruits by having contented officers and contented men. However, I will content myself with asking the Board of Admiraly to see that there is no delay. I would ask whether these 11,000 men are really required? Are they to be posted to ships, to be sent to training establishments, or are they to kick their heels somewhere at shore establishments? A number of these ships will not be commissioned for some years, and with this large increase of 18,000 men in two years one wonders whether they are required. A number of over-age destroyers are to be retained. Are they to be put in reserve or will a number of these men be required to keep these destroyers in active commission? I hope we shall have an answer to these points.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: I want to say a few words about the position of warrant officers, because the Civil Lord in his speech last week seemed to suggest that the Admiralty thought that warrant rank was the best channel of promotion from the lower deck. Warrant officers in the Navy are suffering—I will not say grievances, because they do not like to think that they are men with a grievance—from certain disadvantages or handicaps which affect the number of petty officers who come forward for promotion to warrant

rank. The Admiralty have admitted that a sufficient number of men are not coming forward for warrant rank, for in a previous Debate the Parliamentary Secretary said that although there were 63 vacancies for warrant officers there were not enough qualified candidates. I feel that certain of the disadvantages under which they are now labouring can be removed, and if they are removed there will be no difficulty in getting suitable candidates from the petty officer class to come forward for warrant rank.
The first handicap, or disadvantage, has already been mentioned. It is the question of marriage allowances. This is particularly vital in the case of warrant officers, because a large proportion of warrant officers are married. When they are ratings their wives are in receipt of a marriage allowance, but if they are promoted to warrant rank they lose that marriage allowance, and the loss of this on promotion is one reason why men hesitate to come forward for promotion to warrant rank. The Civil Lord said that the Admiralty were considering these questions in detail and, therefore, I hope he will be able to make a statement on the subject, if not to-day, at a date in the near future. The second disability is the question of pensions for widows of warrant officers and also commissioned officers of warrant rank. The widow of a lieutenant-commander gets a pension of £65 a year, the widow of a lieutenant £50 a year, the widow of a commissioned officer of warrant rank only £45 a year, and the widow of a warrant officer only £35 a year. Warrant officers think that these spacings out are too wide, and that the lower rates should be revised upwards. That is also a reason why the men hesitate to come forward.
The third disadvantage is concerned with the question of promotion from warrant rank to commissioned rank. Up to 1919, under the Regulations, a warrant officer had to serve 15 years before he could get a commission. In 1919 it was reduced to 10 years, which is the present period, but at that time the age for retirement was 55, and since 1922 it has been reduced to 50. There is, therefore, a reduction of five years during which they are able to serve as commissioned officers. Warrant officers think that the period of 10 years they have to serve before they can get a commission should be reduced to eight. It has been pointed


out that 10 years is a long period for a commissioned officer in junior ranks to serve. It is a reasonable request that it should be reduced to eight years, and I hope the Board of Admiralty will consider it.
Another point about which they feel strongly is broken periods during a year counting for pension. They suggest, for example, that service for over three months and less than six months should count as a quarter of a year, that service for over six months and less than nine months should count as a half year, and that service over nine months and less than 12 months should count as three-quarters of a year, in calculating their pension. That is, they consider, a reasonable request, and they would be grateful if the Board would consider it. The fifth point is a small one, and concerns the question of gratuities on promotion from warrant rank to commission rank. When they take a commission they have to buy new uniforms, at considerable expense. I understand that a concession is made when a petty officer gets warrant rank, but that when a warrant officer takes a commission no gratuity is given. In some cases there is very little difference in pay. It may be a small matter, but warrant officers would be grateful if this concession could be made. The sixth point is a better adjustment for climatic pay. At the present moment if two mess-mates sleep and eat together—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now discussing Vote 1.

Mr. Cocks: May I deal with the question of warrant officers any further under this Vote?

Mr. Speaker: The first Resolution, which is now under discussion, deals with the number of officers, seamen, boys and Royal Marines required. The second Resolution deals with pay. The hon. Member is now dealing with the question of the pay of warrant officers, which will arise on the second Resolution.

Mr. Cocks: I will raise that matter on the next Vote. The only other point I wish to raise is the cabin accommodation of warrant officers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot raise that matter on this Resolution.

Mr. Cocks: I have been able to deal with five of the seven points concerning warrant officers that I wanted to raise, and I hope the Admiralty will consider them. Last week the Civil Lord said that the Admiralty was very anxious to improve the status of warrant officers, and that he thought it could be done. Earlier in the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty stated that the Admiralty was considering the recommendations of the committee appointed to inquire into the shortage of warrant officers. If the Admiralty could see its way to make the improvements for which I have asked, in addition to the two other improvements for which I hope to ask a little later, it would lead to a large increase in the number of petty officers coming forward for promotion to warrant rank.

4.32 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I wish to thank the Civil Lord for the courteous reply which he gave when the question of marriage allowances was raised last week and for his kind statement that he would look into the whole question. I support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) concerning widows' pensions. When I asked a question about marriage allowances a short time ago, I received letters from all over the country from widows of admirals, captains, lieutenants and warrant officers, saying that the cost of living and the expenses of keeping up their small social positions had so much increased during the last two years that their pensions were not sufficient to keep them. I do not know how many years ago these pensions were worked out by the Admiralty and the Treasury, but it must have been a long time ago—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is anticipating a later Resolution—that to defray the expenses of Non-Effective Services.

Sir M. Sueter: I thank you for your guidance, but I have said all I wanted to say.

4.34 p.m.

Major Hills: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) about the age of entry into the Navy. In the 18th century, boys went into the Navy to train as midshipmen at a much earlier age than 13½


years. One of my ancestors joined at the early age of eight years, and that at a time when England was at war. Since then the age has been raised until it is now 13½, and I respectfully suggest to the First Lord that the time has come when the matter should be reconsidered. Do we get the best officers by choosing boys of I3½? Many boys, of course, are decided from a very early age on the vocation they would like, but a great many are not. Between the ages of six and eight years, many boys want to become chauffeurs, wireless operators, and so on, but between the ages, of 12 and 15 great changes come over boys. I feel that not much is gained by training a boy from the early age of 13½, and that not much more is done to make him an efficient officer than would be done if the training began at the age of 15 or 16. A boy is often put into the Navy because his father was in it and he has been brought up to think that the Navy is the thing for him, whereas a little later it becomes obvious that it is not the Service for him. I am aware that 13½ is the age at which a great many boys go to the public school, and that that age corresponds to the age at which boys are accepted in the Navy; but I believe that is a difficulty that could be overcome. I am rather inclined to think that, considering the modern educational system and the age to which boys are educated, this question should be carefully reconsidered by my right hon. Friend.

4.37 p.m.

Sir Robert Young: I have been looking into the figures of the increase of officers and men, and I find that the increase of commissioned officers is 360 and subordinate and warrant officers 500, making a total of 860, whereas the increase in ratings is 6,120, plus boys 1,300, making a total of 7,420. I am puzzled as to why it should be necessary to have one officer for 8½ men in the additions that are being made. Has the Navy been under-officered in the past, or does it mean that new appointments are being created for these officers? The second point I wish to raise concerns engine-room artificers. I notice that there is an increase of 104 engine-room artificers and 19 mechanicians. Is that all that the Navy think they will require in the coming year? What is the ground for thinking that only 104 engine-room

artificers will be required for 148 ships, whereas they are asking for 488 cooks? Surely it is more essential to have more men in the Navy for the purposes of the Navy—engineers and so on—than to have so many extra cooks.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: In view of the way in which the Debate has proceeded, I will make the remarks which I wish to make on this Vote before the Government spokesman replies, although I had intended to wait until the reply had been made. The outstanding feature of this Resolution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) said, is that the number of officers and men asked for is an indication of the strength of the Fleet which the Government are seeking to maintain, and in asking the House to vote this very large number of officers and men it must be expected that, on the Report stage, the House should still have in view the very large Fleet which is behind the proposal to increase the number of officers and men and the policy which lies behind that increase. During the Committee stage of the Estimates, I referred to the First Lord's postulation of increasing the influence and strength of the Fleet in both hemispheres, and undoubtedly that policy, which has not been put before us in a very detailed way, but which is evidently covered by the First Lord's phrase, is responsible for the very large number of officers and men for which we are being asked.
I commend to hon. Members a study of the columns of the "Times" for to-day. There is a leading article, with many of the conclusions of which I can hardly be expected to agree, but which nevertheless, in its opinion in regard to the race in Naval armaments, is fairly stated and of vital importance. The beginning of that article states as clearly as any Socialist Member of the House could state the complete futility of a race in the provision of Naval armaments or men to man the ships. I beg the First Lord at some time during the Report stage to tell us a little more as to what are the prospects of arresting this fearful race in Naval armaments which clearly has already begun. The remarks which I made in following the right hon. Gentleman last week have not yet been answered. I pointed out then that, so far from the vast programme on which we are now embarking leading


to any inclination on the part of other Powers to reduce the numbers of their ships or men, the opposite seemed to be the case. The comments of Admiral Leahy in Washington, although they have since been criticised in some quarters in New York, are perhaps the best indication of what the policy of America will be. I think it is as certain as we are debating this matter in the House to-day that if the Washington decision to expand the American fleet in proportion to the expansion of the British Fleet holds good, the Japanese will build in a similar direction, whatever may be the financial sacrifice required. The same argument applies to the Mediterranean.
Although we may give the First Lord his 112,000 officers and men, I still maintain that if the Government go on with this policy, at the end of three or four years from now, when there will have been spent upon the Navy a total of perhaps more than £400,000,000 or £500,000,000, we shall not be one whit relatively stronger in regard to the defences of the British Commonwealth than at the commencement of the programme. That is a very serious matter. It is for the Board of Admiralty to justify this programme of ships and men from that point of view. We have not yet had that justification. It is true that we get the usual type of Navy League answer, always so carefully recorded for us by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), giving general historical reasons for the need to maintain the sea power of this country and so on. But that we do not dispute. What we argue is that we should move to that relative provision of armaments which gives the same amount of security at far less cost and far less danger to the peace of the world. That is the basis of our case, and it is that which is not happening. Therefore, I think we are entitled to ask the First Lord to give some explanation on what has been regarded in some quarters as the sinister references in his speech concerning the uses of the British Navy in future.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare): indicated dissent.

Mr. Alexander: The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I am very glad to see him shake his head in these circumstances. Certainly, his reference to the duty and the use of the British

Navy in the future has not gone unnoticed in other parts of the world. Therefore, we are entitled to ask for what standard are we preparing this expansion of the Fleet? What is to be the total strength of our Fleet in relation to others? Is it to be based on a standard agreed upon with the nations in the League who are still with us in respect of collective security, or is it in relation to a kind of balance of power, because we are always sure of specific naval help from certain countries in the event of hostilities? We ought to know that.
It is very difficult for the First Lord to refer to any particular country, but I do not think that the circumstances are so very much different from those that existed before the War. Who can read the speeches made in 1912–13 by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and not mark how clearly he demonstrated at every stage of his presentation of the Estimates why the Fleet was being so constituted and against whom we were really arming? It is the duty of the Government to tell the House whether the nation can have renewed confidence arising from this naval programme, because as a result of the programme we shall be relatively stronger in relation to other Powers, even if those Powers go on building in the armaments race. That is the question that we should like to have answered, and it has not been answered.
We are not satisfied in regard to the provision of officers. We are to have the addition in personnel to which the hon. Member for Aberdare referred. How are the men to be officered? As far as I can gather from the announcements made, requests have been made for officers from the mercantile reserve of the Navy. It seems, therefore, that the Admiralty anticipate a shortage of officers. Is that so? What is the exact position? There are many people in naval circles who think that it is a questionable policy to make this appeal for officers from the mercantile side, especially when the Admiralty are completely damping down promotion from the lower deck. There is an article in the "Times" to-day by an unsigned correspondent, which deals with the whole question of the appointment of officers from the lower deck. According to that article we are debating this Report stage


on the 25th anniversary of the day when the right hon. Member for Epping first announced new regulations, in 1912, which would permit of the promotion to officer rank of men from the lower deck.
Anyone who has read that article, which gives clearly the history of the case, with the number of officers who have been promoted from the lower deck in the meantime, and setting out the honourable, gallant and efficient service of officers promoted from the lower deck during the Great War, must feel that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark in this respect. We are down to an average of four officers per year in the last three years promoted from the lower deck, compared with what happened in 1912–13 when we were getting them promoted from the lower deck by tens instead of by units. Those officers did very fine and efficient service. Following the report of the Larken Committee in 1931, a committee which I appointed, which we hoped would smooth the way by arrangements for the selection at an earlier age of leading seamen from the lower deck to enable them to take a course which would fit them to get promotion to commissioned rank, we fail to understand how it is that we have now so few men from the lower deck being given the chance to become officers.
I pointed out in the Committee stage the great discrepancy there is in this regard between the situation in the Navy and in the Army. In the three years during which there have been 12 promotions from the lower deck, there have been 285 promotions in the Army from the ordinary ranks to commissioned rank. We are bound to assume in these circumstances—I feel strongly about this matter, although I have no special antipathy against any particular class; I am speaking from my experience in discusing this matter at the Admiralty—that there is a real desire on the part of large numbers of people who are behind naval policy in this country to keep this type of service in the Navy as a class preserve. Even those who do not go quite as far as that are still bitten by the idea which lay behind the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), that you cannot make good officers unless you catch them young. All our experience of the result of our moral structure of publicly-aided education in

this country is proof to the contrary, and the Board of Admiralty ought to make some change in this direction. When we are asked to vote 112,000 officers and men and we are faced with the fact that the Admiralty have had to go outside in the last two months to obtain officers, we are entitled to ask, what is behind this damping down of promotion from the lower deck? We are entitled to have a direct and specific answer, and I can tell the Front Bench opposite that at the moment we are completely dissatisfied with the answers that have been given.

4.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: Many criticisms have been made against the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth, and they demand an answer from another point of view. It is all very well to say that we get these boys at 13½ years entering Dartmouth, but there is also an opportunity for boys to enter the service at the later age of 17. These boys of 13½ provide a very useful source from which to draw our future naval officers. At Dartmouth there is an opportunity of teaching these future officers and giving them a naval training such as they could not possibly get four years later by entering at 17. For instance a public school education does not afford the opportunity of giving training in seamanship, mathematics from the navigational point of view, and the very sound training in engineering which you get at Dartmouth. All these things are a very sound basis for training future naval officers, and it would be very unfortunate if we were to abolish this system of getting officers through Dartmouth.

4.54 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend reminded the House that we are debating this Report stage on the anniversary of a Measure introduced by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes) will also remember that we are debating it on a great naval anniversary which we both have reason to remember, the anniversary of the naval attack on the Dardanelles. I hope that I shall not make him blush by referring to his superb services on that occasion, but I shall certainly remember him when the port comes round to-night. I associate myself fully


with what has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends on these benches on the subject of advancement in and promotion from the lower deck.
Having listened to the Debate on the three Service Estimates during the past week, many of us have had an uneasy feeling that the conditions in the Navy in this respect are not equal to the condilions in the other two Services, and I ask the First Lord to look into the matter from the point of view of comparing those conditions with the conditions in the other Services, and make absolutely certain that the Navy is fully abreast of what obtains in the other two Services in that direction. If the First Lord does bring the conditions in the Navy up to the highest standard in respect of advancement and of promotion from the lower deck, I am sure the Navy and the country will have no reason to regret it for there is first-rate material available.
I have one specific question to ask. The proposals for the manning of the Fleet are apparently based on the First Lord's statement last week that we are to maintain a Fleet in both hemispheres, a Fleet in the Far Eastern hemisphere which shall be able to meet any conceivable combination of forces, and a Fleet in this hemisphere similarly capable of meeting any combination of opposition in the Mediterranean or the North Sea. If that be so, and if the Admiralty are contemplating Fleets of such dimensions, then even if we follow the example of certain Totalitarian States and press the women into service, we shall not have enough men or women in the country to build, to man and to maintain Fleets of such size, having regard to the demands of the other two Services.
The specific question that I wish to ask is this. Speaking in the Debate last week I referred to a statement made by the right hon. Member for Epping concerning the Japanese Navy and I pointed out that the Japanese could upset all prevailing ideas of comparative strengths if they were to adopt the 16-inch gun. I see from well authenticated reports in the Press that the Japanese Admiralty have in fact decided to adopt the 16-inch gun. Our Estimates and our manning proposals are based, I understand, upon the intention to arm our Fleet with 14-inch guns. What is to be our reply to the Japanese Admiralty about this? Are we

going to follow their example and adopt the 16-inch gun?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing the armament of the ships?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I was not listening very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Member said, but if he was discussing the question of armaments he was out of order.

Mr. Alexander: I think that anyone who reads the statement of the case in this morning's Press must realise that if the 16-inch gun is adopted by the Japanese, and we do so, we shall require a larger sized ship and a bigger number of men, instead of the number of men involved in the manning of the winch gun ships.

Mr. Speaker: In that case he would be in order.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend has anticipated my argument. Apparently there is a choice between one of two things. Either our supreme Fleet in the Far East, of which the First Lord has spoken, is to go into action with 14-inch guns against, possibly, a fleet mounting 16-inch guns, or else we must arm our ships with 16-inch guns. The 16-inch gun not only requires a larger complement of men, which no one should know better than the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), but it is also agreed by naval experts that it is very doubtful if the 35,000 ton ship constitutes an adequate gun platform for the 16-inch gun, so that if the 16-inch gun is adopted we shall be forced to build a larger ship than 35,000 tons. We seem to be confronted with these two alternatives and I hope the Minister who is going to reply will give us some light on the subject. Are we going to reply to the 16-inch gun which is to be adopted by Japan or are we to continue with the 14-inch gun? If we are to be forced up to a i6-inch gun and a ship above 35,000 tons, is it not the case that the present Estimates and the manning proposals based on them will have to be revised and revised upwards?

5.2 p.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I would like to ask hon. Members opposite who are opposing the numbers in


personnel required by the Admiralty, whether they are satisfied with the existing manning situation in the Navy. It must be within their knowledge that owing to the shortage of personnel in the Navy the men, particularly in certain classes, are suffering a great hardship in having to spend the greater part of their service abroad. Do not hon. Members realise that the personnel must be increased if a fair proportion of their service is to be spent in home waters?

Mr. Alexander: We have no objection to provision of the necessary personnel for the efficient manning of the Fleet, but our experience in 1930 was that we discovered a distinct over-bearing. There should be no unnecessary overbearing.

Sir R. Keyes: The reductions which were made in personnel when the right hon. Gentleman was in office resulted in a great many men having to spend the greater part of their service abroad, and consequently seeing little of their families. That is well known in all the Service ports, and cannot have escaped the notice of hon. Members opposite.

5.5 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Perhaps it would be convenient if I answered one or two smaller points raised in the Debate. My right hon. Friend the First Lord will deal with questions of policy. I wish to clear up any possible misapprehension about the statement which I made last week on the question of promotion. I tried to put the matter in some perspective. I repeat the four points which I made, because they partly answer the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall). I said it was all wrong to think that there was a great demand in the Navy on this question of promotion; secondly that there was no reason to be dissatisfied with the present standard of officers; thirdly, that we wished to identify the Navy with the main national stream of education and to draw from all classes in the community; and, fourthly, that there are four different avenues for entering the commissioned ranks of the Navy. A question has been raised regarding Dartmouth. For several years Dartmouth has produced a very fine type of naval officer, and while I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an early age for

a boy to choose his career, I think he is quite wrong when he suggests that the boys are dependent on their parents for putting them into the Navy. My experience—and I believe it is the experience of hon. and gallant Members—is that the boys decide for themselves and do so somewhat early. I object to a boy having to make a decision about a scholarship at the age of II plus, when his whole future depends on it, but it is different in the Navy. Dartmouth has been considerably improved since my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was last there, and I would like to read this report from the Board of Education:
It will be obvious from this report that the college is doing admirable work as a place of education for naval cadets. The inspector views with dismay any proposal to restrict its scope or lessen the contribution it makes to the education of naval officers. While the course at the college is designed to meet the special needs of those who will enter the Naval Service, it is in no sense narrowly conceived. On the contrary, it provides, in the view of the inspectors a kind of education which would be very suitable for many of the cadets' contemporaries who have no intention of entering the Navy. The main criticism which was made in the last report has been met, so far as it could be met, having regard to the age at which the cadets pass out, by the institution of the "Alpha Classes"; and other changes introduced by the headmaster have been all to the good.
My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced the house system at Dartmouth recently, and we should be glad to consider any other improvement that might be suggested. But it is no good scrapping a good thing. On educational grounds we were opposed to boys coming in at 16 when other boys were coming in at 13, but that is not the only method of becoming an officer in the Royal Navy. There are at least three other methods. Many other boys come through the Special Entry at 17—boys from a wide variety of schools, public and grammar. Roughly 50 per cent. of the boys going into the officer executive class come through the Special Entry at the age of 17. Two other avenues have been mentioned. There is the system established by my right hon. Friend, for he abolished the mate system, and the new system which he introduced has been slightly improved, and the age limit of 21 reduced.
We are not satisfied with the system which my right hon. Friend introduced


four or five years ago. The examinations are too strict and the whole ladder could be more easily climbed. The fourth avenue of promotion is the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who made a series of practical and constructive suggestions. Every one of the suggestions which he made is now before the Board. I am to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the First Lord, that it is his desire that when improvements are made, as they are bound to be—not in 1938, as the hon. Member for Aberdare suggested—but in the coming year, they should be made as a whole and not piecemeal.
We are glad to have the blessing of the hon. Member for Aberdare for the Welfare Scheme. It is a most remarkable thing that there should be 4,000 suggestions coming forward dealing with the most important things in the men's life and service. A fresh lot of recommendations will be coming out shortly. It is not an easy job dealing with 4,000 requests, but the whole thing will be dealt with within a few months.

Mr. Alexander: What is the process to be?

Mr. Lindsay: The representations go through the Ship Committee, the Fleet Committee, and the Commander-in-Chief, and any notes which the Commander-inChief attaches to them are only explanatory. No single recommendation is left out.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord mentioned last week and again to-day that in the Fleet there is no express desire for the opening of the pathway to promotion. Is it not because the men as a whole have the feeling that the gulf between them and promotion is almost impassable? Would it not be desirable to encourage among the great mass of the men a feeling that the way to promotion is open to them?

Mr. Lindsay: I want to enter a caveat against the idea that there is a great demand throughout the Navy for promotion from the lower deck. There is room for it. I think that by broadening the basis on which boys may enter the Navy, by improving the whole status of warrant officers and by making the ladder easier to climb we shall be able to say we are drawing into the executive officer class

from every possible source in the country—from preparatory, public, secondary and central schools.

5.15 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I intervene in the discussion on this question of promotion from the lower deck chiefly on account of a statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). We all regret that there is not a greater number of promotions from the lower deck, but the right hon. Gentleman stated that there was a certain section of naval officers who were opposed to promotion from the lower deck and treated it as a class matter. I think that is a very reprehensible statement for an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty to make.

Mr. Alexander: It is true.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I have had some practical experience at sea, and it has gone to show me that naval officers do everything they can to assist any man who desires to be promoted from the lower deck to attain his object. I very much regret that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. There are many reasons why there are not more promotions from the lower deck. The Civil Lord has mentioned one, and a very important one—that there is no great demand for it on the lower deck. An attempt has been made to draw a parallel between promotion in the Army and promotion in the Navy as if the conditions in the two Services were the same. The conditions are different. The private in the Army during his ordinary work and training is, to a great extent, fitting himself for the work which he would have to undertake if he became an officer. That does not apply to the Navy. The work of the bluejacket on the deck and the training which he receives do not necessarily fit him to go on the bridge and take command of the ship. There is no real analogy between the training of the private and the training of the bluejacket if you are considering the question of promotion to officer rank.
There is also the question of the increased expenses which have to be undertaken by a man when he has been promoted from the lower deck, especially under the present condition with regard to marriage allowances—though I am glad


to say that that matter is under consideration. But it is far more expensive for those men themselves when they go into the officers' mess and it is also far more expensive for their wives and their families ashore. They have to keep up appearances. They are naturally desirous that, as they rise in rank, their wives and families should occupy better social positions, and why not? But that makes it more expensive and more difficult for them. There are many other reasons why there are not more promotions from the lower deck, but I do not propose to go into them now. As I say, I intervened on this point chiefly because I strongly objected to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough to which I have referred.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) told us about his experience at sea. The disadvantage of having been at sea, apparently, is that those who have been at sea once, remain at sea, even when they get back on to dry land. The hon. and gallant Member seems to be very much at sea in thinking that anything which he said tended to disprove the statements of my hon. Friends on this side in favour of a greater amount of promotion from the lower deck. I keep away from the sea. I have been seasick on the crossing from Southsea to Ryde, and my feelings regarding the sea were well expressed by a private who was under me when I was a non-commissioned officer on my first trip across to France during the late War. As the ship was heaving about, he said, "Why the—something or other—don't they torpedo her?" I do not profess to understand the point of view of the bluejacket as opposed to that of the private, but it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that one reason why you have to be careful about promotion from the lower deck—I am not putting his argument too high—is the expense incurred by the ex-bluejacket when he gets into the officer class, amounts to a complete admission of the case which has been put from this side.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I did not suggest that you ought to be careful about promotion from the lower deck, I suggested that that was one of the considerations

which would occur to the mind of a man who might wish to be promoted from the lower deck.

Mr. Ede: I purposely said I was not trying to put the hon. and gallant Member's argument too high, but if he insists on keeping that particular flag at the masthead he must not blame me for the consequences. Surely that is one of the considerations which presents itself to the mind of the youth in the secondary school, or elsewhere, who is contemplating a career in the Navy. If he goes into this profession he expects to rise in it, and if he rises in it, he will be faced with more social expenditure, as it may be called, than he would have to meet in many other professions or callings open to him, in which he would be able, more or less, to set his own standard. I suggest that what the hon. and gallant Member has said is the strongest possible argument for some action by the Lords of the Admiralty or the proper authorities first to see that those expenses are kept within bounds and, secondly, to see that the pay of the young officer is sufficient to enable him to feel that he will be able to undertake the job properly and to be well in the swim with others of similar rank. I did not hear anything in what the hon. and gallant Member said which made me think that the remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was in any way reprehensible. My right hon. Friend being an expert in cooperation might well be regarded by the hon. and gallant Member as likely to expound on this matter views which would be of assistance to young men contemplating promotion from the lower deck or contemplating a professional career in the Navy. I hope the Admiralty will take note of what the hon. and gallant Member has said with a view to removing from the minds of aspirants for promotion the fear which, as he has said, at present prevents them from seeking promotion.

5.24 p.m.

Sir Samuel Hoare: I welcome the chance of making a few observations in answer to the questions which have been put to me, especially as I think that I can remove a good many misapprehensions from the minds of certain hon. Members. Let me say at the outset that the more I have listened to the Debate, the more


I have been convinced that though we may differ upon certain details, there is at bottom a very great measure of agreement between us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) are just as anxious to see an efficient Navy as we are, and are just as keen, as I know from what I have heard in the Admiralty, about the details of naval administration as if they themselves were still in office in Whitehall. I believe there is not very much disagreement between us.
First let me say a few words about the wide field of policy. There, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough seemed to think that we were embarking upon a grandoise and provocative programme of expansion; that we were going to take on the whole world at once, or thought that we could take on the whole world at once, and that there were all sorts of sinister motives behind the programme for which I am responsible. Let me disabuse the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite of any impression of that kind. What we are trynig to do is to make a Fleet which will be up to date and efficient for its task. I thought the other day I was stating a self-evident fact when I said that if we were to have an efficient Fleet it must be efficient for its duties in both the Eastern and Western hemispheres. I should have thought that that was a self-evident fact, and that no sinister motives could be read into a statement of that kind in any quarter.
I am not one of those who draw distinctions between national needs and collective needs. I have never admitted that dilemma. I claim that everything which I am asking the House to approve in these Estimates is just as necessary for the implementing of our collective obligations as it is for the defence of these shores and the defence of the Empire generally. I again ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to point to any item in this programme which is not urgently required if we are to pull our weight and play our full part in the collective action of the League in the years to come. There seems to be an impression that in some way or other we are not in favour of such action. I wish we could see into each other's minds. If we could, hon. Members opposite would find how

very wrong is any impression of that kind and how, at the bottom of my heart, I am just as anxious to strengthen and mobilise the forces of peace in the world against any possible aggressor as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite.
I say, therefore, that I was stating a self-evident fact when I said that, in the interests both of collective security and of national and Imperial security, it was necessary that the Fleet should be able to carry out its responsibilities in both hemispheres. After all, our obligations do not end in one hemisphere. It may well be that if the Fleet had been stronger in former years, the forces of peace would have been stronger to-day. Be that as it may, there is the need for making the Fleet efficient and I claim that there is no item, big or small, in this programme that is not as necessary for our collective obligations as it is for our national and Imperial security.

Mr. Alexander: This leaves us very much in the air. Having gone so far, will the right hon. Gentleman mind going a little farther and say what is the ultimate standard which he regards as necessary for Imperial and national Defence, as well as for collective security? Will he tell us what he is aiming at. Is it a Fleet of 15 capital ships? Is it a Fleet of 70 cruisers, with a maximum of 200,000 tons of destroyers? What is the maximum fleet that he requires in order to reach a standard of efficiency? On that we ought to judge this Vote.

Sir S. Hoare: I readily respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I say to him what I said the other day in the House, that it is impossible here and now to give a categorical answer to questions of that kind. The world changes too quickly. What I can say to him is that we have to take these programmes year by year, and that for the purpose of this year it is essential in the interests both of collective action and of individual security that we should lay down these new battleships, that we should lay down the new cruisers, and that we should lay down the new destroyers and the smaller ships. Once again, in no provocative spirit, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point to any single item in this programme that is not urgently needed to meet the requirements I have stated.

Mr. Alexander: I shall be glad to say at any time how much they are in excess of what is required when we know what is the Government's attitude towards collective security. We cannot get out of the Government what they are going to do.

Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid I cannot make myself clearer than I have done.

Mr. Paling: It is very vague.

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member says it is very vague, but hon. Members on this side think that I am not vague. I am afraid that I have nothing further to add to the position. It is set out in the Estimates, and, in my view, it is quite clear. It is easily understandable by the country, and so far from any evil intention having been read into this programme, I have been much struck with the general body of support, not restricted to any one party, that seems to be behind it. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think, both to-day and on the last occasion when we discussed the Estimates, that we were contemplating war against the whole world. I cannot believe that, short of midsummer madness, the foreign policy of this country would contemplate such a state of affairs ever existing. I cannot contemplate a war in which we should be facing the world without any allies. If the right hon. Gentleman contemplates such a contingency, I can only say that he is a much greater pessimist than I imagined him to be.
Nor do I agree with him that this much-needed programme is going to start again a race in naval armaments. I do not think it will do anything of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman goes on murmuring interjections of disagreement. I am stating my view, and he evidently does not agree with me, but we have failed to agree with each other sometimes in the past. I am stating my view, and I say that I do not believe this programme is going to lead to a new race in naval armaments. I said the other day that it is a satisfactory fact that in the field of naval armaments the great Powers have been able to come to agreement in recent years. I still hope that it will be possible to implement the agreement reached in London last year. I do not wish to be either optimistic or pessimistic, but I say that it would be a great calamity to the world

if this agreement were not implemented by the great naval Powers and we saw starting once again a competition in new types and new sizes.
The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) asked me about certain aspects of the treaty. He alluded to certain rumours about Japanese policy. I can tell the House that I have no official information on the subject, but what I can say is that it would be a matter of great regret to all of us if any one of the naval Powers started building guns bigger than the 14-inch guns or ships bigger than the 35,000-ton battleships. So far as we are concerned, we are definitely arming the new battleships with 14-inch guns and we do not intend to make a change. We intend to stick to the 14-inch guns for the 35,000-ton battleships, and I am sure that if only all the other naval Powers do the same—and there is a wide measure of agreement between certain of the naval Powers on this subject—it will be much better for the world as a whole, and I do not think that any Navy will lose in the way of efficiency.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: If a larger ship and a larger gun make their appearance, shall we still stick to our plans and design for these capital ships?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, we are going to stick to our designs in these new ships, and I hope we shall not have to change them in future. If other countries break away from the agreement, we shall have to consider the position at the time. For the time being, we intend to arm these battleships with uniform armaments. We believe that, from the point of view of efficiency, there is much to be said for the 14-inch gun, and we do not intend to alter our design.
Let me say a word to supplement what the Civil Lord has said about the question of promotion. I have given a great deal of personal attention to the whole question of promotion from the lower deck. I do not believe that there is a great measure of disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and myself over a good deal of the problem. I wish to see the ladder wider from the lower deck to the commissioned ranks. The difficulty is not a difficulty of prejudice or It is a difficulty connected with the actual conditions of service. I


will tell hon. Members what I mean. The requirements for a commissioned officer, we should all agree, must reach a high standard. We cannot take in officers of a low standard. It would be bad for the Navy if we did. In subsequent years they would not be able to finish their careers; they would drop away, and that would be unsatisfactory from both points of view. It happens that life on board a ship is necessarily not a very easy background in which a young man can work up for a very difficult examination and pass from the lower deck to the quarter-deck. It is in the nature of the conditions of service upon a ship that you cannot have the privacy, the leisure, and so on for working up for a very difficult examination. I assign the smallness of numbers much more to actual conditions of that kind than to any desire on anybody's part to restrict the numbers.
With the help of the Board, I am looking into these conditions to see whether we cannot make it easier for a young man to pass these various tests. It is very necessary to give him a commission early if he is going to make a career. The problem is to pick out the young man early and so to arrange his training as to give him an effective opportunity to pass his tests. It is on that problem that we are engaged. We have asked each of the commanders-in-chief to report upon the position with a view to making it easier for these young men, and when I get those reports and we have had an opportunity of digesting them, I will tell the House what is the conclusion that we have drawn. I can assure hon. Members that there is a general desire to see that the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman started, and which for reasons such as I have mentioned is not working, does work.
As to the other method of entry into the Navy through Dartmouth, we have to judge the various systems of entry by the productions that come out of them, and I am sure that any unbiased investigator into naval conditions would agree with me when I say that Dartmouth is turning out a very excellent type of officer and that from the point of view of the Navy it would be a disaster if that particular method of entry were closed. I agree, however, that Dartmouth should not be the only method of entry, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite would,

I am sure, be glad to hear that we have been substantially increasing the numbers of the special entry into the Navy. The special entry enables boys to be drawn from a variety of schools in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at an answer given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary, he will see set out the schools from which these boys come, and he will find that they cover almost every type of school. It is to the special entry that we shall particularly look for recruiting those very intelligent young men from the secondary schools.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of drawing the attention of local education authorities to this opening through special entry. I remember that at one time years ago I used to take a great interest in the scholarship question on the higher education committee of a county council, and I did my best to expand the scholarship system. Would it not be possible—I ask the question of local education authorities—for them to bring the special entry into the Navy into their scholarship system, and so make it easier for the clever boys who have no private means to enter into the commissioned ranks of the Navy? I suggest that for the consideration of hon. Members who are interested in educational questions and to members of local education authorities.

Mr. Ede: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that local education authorities should consider assisting financially the youth whom it is proposed to admit to Dartmouth by special entry.

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think that the hon. Member is quite in possession of the details. There is the Dartmouth entry at 13½. I was referring to the special entry from the secondary schools at the age of 17 or 18. I was thinking of the local education authorities particularly in connection with the special entry, and if they have suggestions to make about Dartmouth, by all means let them make them.

Mr. Ede: Leaving out Dartmouth, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he hopes local education authorities will agree to assist these youths financially to make a career in the Navy? If so, I suggest that he should get the President of the Board of Education, who is sitting near him at the moment, to make an


announcement to the local education authorities that such expenditure would rank for grants.

Sir S. Hoare: I must confine myself to my own Department. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is sitting near to me, and perhaps he has taken note of the suggestion which I have made. I made it because I am very anxious to keep the ladder wide and open for all keen and clever boys to get into the Navy. I am conscious of the fact that every profession in the country benefits by being able to recruit brains from all classes of the community, and I wish to see the Navy also enjoying that advantage.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the First Lord consider reducing the cost of living for these lads when they get promotion, because that is one of the great difficulties in the way of their promotion. It is not, as was suggested, that officers are trying to keep them from being promoted, it is the cost of living which stands in the way.

Sir S. Hoare: We try to keep officers' expenses as low as we can, and I think the hon. Member would be surprised if he had seen, as I have, the budgets of a number of typical naval officers and observed how every economically they live. I think he would also be surprised to find how very many of them are dependent upon their pay, and have little private resources of their own, but I agree that we must keep their expenses as low as we can.
That brings me to the third method of entry—the one discussed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks)—the entry of warrant officers to the commissioned ranks. There, again, I have been very carefully into the whole question, which is a complicated one. The hon. Member himself had seven points to make, five of which he has put to the House and two of which we await with keen anticipation, and that shows that it is a complicated issue. There again I am inclined to think that one of the most important factors is the pay. There is the factor, for instance, of marriage allowances. If I were a free agent dealing with the matter only from the Admiralty point of view, that is the kind of question which I should like to settle here and now, at this Box, but, unfortunately, it is one of the questions which are inti-

mately connected with a number of other Service questions which have been under consideration for many years, and it has become so complicated with other issues that it has been difficult to separate it. All I can say is that I am looking into it again, and with the utmost measure of good will, but that I am not a free agent in the matter. I am also looking into the other points in connection with the position of warrant officers, because I agree that we have to make it easy for a warrant officer to get a commission. I have ventured to make these observations chiefly with the intention of removing from the minds of hon. Members any idea that there is any want of sympathy on this bench with the general desire to make it easier for the clever boy to get into the Navy and, when he is in the Navy, to rise to the highest ranks in it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: On the previous Vote I dealt with the position of warrant officers, and made five of the points I wish to bring forward. As the First Lord remarked, I have seven points, but I am afraid that my last point, the seventh, cannot be put before the House, because, apparently, it comes under another Vote. It concerns the desire of warrant officers for better cabin accommodation in ships of the cruiser class. The other point I wish to mention, and which may, perhaps, seem a small point, is that they feel there ought to be a better adjustment of the pay granted when they are serving under specially trying climatic conditions. Two mess-mates may sleep and eat together and live under precisely the same conditions in a tropical climate, but because one has half a strip more than another he gets extra pay in respect of this climatic discomfort, pay which is 200 per cent. greater than that of his messmate. Warrant officers consider that is an anomaly which ought to be removed. I should like to thank the First Lord of the Admiralty very sincerely for his most sympathetic reply, which I am sure will be received by the warrant officers of


the Navy with great gratitude, and as he is himself going into this question in detail I hope that before long he may be able to announce that some of these reforms or improvements have been carried out.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.54 p.m.

Mr. G. Hall: The amount which is named in this Estimate does not give a true picture of the expenditure under the Vote. The new system to which I referred in the Debate on Vote A can be seen in actual operation on this Vote. Though the amount of the Vote is £2,093,000, the actual expenditure is no less than £4,900,000, the difference being made up by what are called appropriations-in-aid, very largely the sum which will come from the Consolidated Fund when the legislation dealing with the new Defence Loan has been passed by the House. This expenditure of nearly £5,000,000 includes some very heavy items about which I should like a little further explanation than is given in the Estimates themselves. First, there is the expenditure on the boys' training establishment at Rosyth. In the last five or six months the White Star liner "Majestic" was purchased and is to be used as a training school until a new school is erected. As the total cost of the school amounts to no less than £870,000, I think we ought to have some further explanation. We ought to be told whether the school, when erected, will provide only for the boys drawn from Scotland and the North of England, and whether Shotley, upon which there is to be further large expenditure, will be used for training boys from the South and West of England and from Wales.
The expenditure upon schools or training establishments is not confined to this item of £870,000, and the £90,000 for Shotley, but there is to be a school at Portsmouth which accounts for £350,000, making an expenditure of just about £1,250,000 in all for training establishments. I raised the point on Vote 10 last year, when I asked why there was this

need for these extra buildings, seeing that the personnel of the Navy in 1913 was some 40 per cent. more than is now being provided for, even if we include the 11,000 to be taken in under Vote A. Surely there are existing buildings without our having to incur this expenditure.
Then there is to be extensive expenditure upon storage accommodation. Is it now the policy of the Admiralty to have all the storage for ammunition underground? Tucked away in this Vote is an item of no less than £3,250,000 for a central storage magazine, and I should like to know where that is to be provided, and whether that will reduce the number of buildings at present being used for storage, because if so there would be a further number of buildings available for purposes which are, perhaps, provided for in other items. The expenditure upon storage is not confined to this sum of £3,250,000, for I find that there is an item of £520,000 for mine bases and boom defences storage. Then there is the Pembroke mine depot, the cost of which is estimated to be £538,000. All that, with the Crombie storage, amounts to no less than £5,000,000 for storage. That must mean that the policy of the Admiralty has now changed, and that they are going to have huge underground storages. With regard to the Pembroke storage, does it mean that it is the storage which has been provided for in the Estimates during the last three or four years? The Minister of Labour, in his list of works for the relief of distress in the Special Areas, referred to some mining debot at Pembroke. I suggested that that was the depot which had been provided for over a series of years, but that suggestion was resented by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he wound up that Debate.
There is the question of oil storage. An item amounting to £770,000 is provided for storage accommodation for fuel oil. May I put a question as to whether it is the intention now, instead of storing oil in tanks scattered all over the neighbourhood near the ports, to have underground storage for reserve supplies of fuel oil? I have in mind a reply to a question which was put to the Civil Lord a fortnight or three weeks ago, in which it was suggested that the Admiralty were now looking into the question of the underground storage of oil at Singapore. If it


is necessary to store the oil underground at Singapore, surely it is equally necessary to do so in this country. I am somewhat alarmed at the very easy targets afforded by the many tanks in which oil is stored in this country at the present time. On the Thames-side there is a veritable forest of oil tanks, making, in the event of war, the easiest targets imaginable for attack from the air. If it is the intention to provide this oil storage underground, will the Civil Lord give us the difference in cost of storage of a ton of oil underground compared with the storage of a ton of oil in a tank overground? These questions raise the general subject of oil storage, and while I do not propose, under Vote no, to deal with the general question of oil production or the difficulty which the Admiralty, in common with other Services, are facing, seeing that we have to import 95 per cent. of our oil from overseas, we may, in the course of the next month or so, call for the appropriate Vote, when the subject of this vitally important fuel can be discussed.
Is there any co-ordination among the three Services in connection with this question of fuel storage. I find in the Air Estimates an item of well over 1,000,000 for the storage of petrol. Perhaps the Civil Lord, in the absence of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, will explain whether each Department deals with the question of oil storage for itself, instead of there being some co-ordination of the Navy, Air Force and Army. It is imperative that there should be an oil policy, or a fuel policy, which can be effectively dealt with only from the point of view of the three Services.
I have one or two further questions about Singapore. The First Lord of the Admiralty, during the Debate upon the general Estimates, said that the completion of Singapore was in sight. Year after year expenditure upon Singapore has been growing. The Jackson contract was completed some two years ago. That was the main contract, but we find that there is still an expenditure of something like £3,000,000 before Singapore will be completed. We have seen the expenditure grow from £7,000,000 to something like £11,500,000. That is exclusive of £2,700,000 by the Army and expenditure by the Air Force. Would the Civil Lord

tell us whether the expenditure is to continue to grow. Singapore is becoming a very expensive item. Whether we shall have the full benefit of the expenditure, the future alone can show. Why is there this further increase of expenditure, and is it not possible now to give some final estimate of the cost of this Singapore base? I would therefore beg to move to reduce this Vote—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I understood that the hon. Member was not intending to move a reduction. That was why I put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." He cannot move a reduction now.

6.6 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I want to ask a question about the provision of underground storage for aircraft at home and overseas bases. I have in mind partly the question of Malta, where the soil is peculiarly soft and no great expense would be attached to providing underground storage for aeroplanes, aircraft and so on. It would, of course, be an enormous advantage if that were done. I was also proposing to ask about the underground storage of oil, but that has already been dealt with. There is no doubt that these overground tanks offer very easy and very large targets, and are exceedingly vulnerable. Although an oil tank does not explode when it is struck, the oil is lost, and if it is anywhere near a large river like the Thames, the damage is enormous. It would be of the greatest advantage if underground storage were provided for oil fuel.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Watson: I cannot allow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) to pass without saying a word or two. On the last occasion when we discussed this matter I heard a protest from various parts of the House when I referred to the Navy as an English Navy and not a British Navy. I consider that I was justified in complaining that Scotland has been allowed to play very little part in the Navy. I welcomed what had been done in giving some little encouragement for Scottish boys to enter the Navy, but up to now the Navy has given very little encouragement to Scotland. Hon. Members do not require me to remind them


that Rosyth naval base, the only naval base that we had in Scotland, was reduced to a care and maintenance basis, and that it remains in that position to this day. My complaint last time was that Scotland was not given its proper share. We play our part in regard to the Army—we have our Scottish regiments—and the Air Force, from which we get a certain amount of encouragement, but not when it comes to the Navy.
As some sort of compensation for the closing of the Rosyth dockyard the Admiralty have arranged that a training ship for boys should be sent to Rosyth. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare is asking why this training ship should be sent to Rosyth. There is a very complete answer to that, and it is that Scottish boys ought to be given as great an opportunity of entering the Navy as English or Welsh boys. If hon. Members examine the Estimates they will find that very little provision is made for Scotland. I understand that the training ship is for the purpose of recruiting boys from Scotland and from the North of England. In other parts of the Estimates sufficient provision is made for English or Welsh boys to enter the Royal Navy, and I hope that the Admiralty will stand by what has already been done and that we shall have that training at Rosyth until permanent buildings can be erected. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are no permanent buildings at Rosyth for the training of boys, either for the Navy or as apprentices. I hope that the provision that has already been intimated by the Admiralty will be maintained, and that they intend to give us not only that training ship, which may serve us for a few years, but permanent buildings, so that Scottish boys may have the same opportunity of entering the Navy and playing their part as boys from any other part of the United Kingdom.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I will reply to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). He addressed two questions to the Government, the first of which referred to the training establishments. Even on the strength of the Navy this year, which shows an increase of 11,000, there is a shortage of accommodation in training establishments. That is clear from the

improvements and additions which have had to be made in connection with the "St. Vincent" and at Devonport and Shotley. A second reason for the shortage of accommodation is that educational standards have risen. I am sure that no hon. Member would like to see those standards below the Board of Education standard. In connection with the buildings at Rosyth hon. Members should take the figure of £750,000 in the Estimates as something in the nature of a token figure. It is impossible to estimate to any very accurate point the cost of this school at the present moment. I have already explained that the "Majestic" has been converted into a boys' training ship and a mechanical training establishment. The fact that there are going to be 1,50o seamen boys in that ship proves conclusively that there is a shortage of accommodation. It is not an ideal training establishment; it is a temporary matter, just as the other additions to Shotley and the "St. Vincent" were. Looking ahead, we expect to see two establishments in the South of England, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) that an establishment in Scotland would be desirable as well. It is high time that Scotland and the North of England were more closely identified with the Navy. It is not that they have not sent thousands of boys to Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham during the last 20 or 30 years, but I think there would be a definite advantage in having an establishment in the North of England or in Scotland, and as soon as possible the plans and designs for this new school will be got out.
The whole question boils down to this, that if you are meeting an emergency it is no use talking about building a school which will take four years to complete when you want accommodation during the next two or three years. It is the same argument that we had to use the other day about taking Royal Naval Reserve officers into the Navy. We are meeting an emergency, not only in shipbuilding but in men, and that is the short answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question. Signal schools are on a different footing. There has been for a long time, owing to the growth of wireless signalling in the Navy, a shortage of such accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman probably remembers, the signal school at


Portsmouth is in the barracks. That is a very unsatisfactory place for a signal school, and, in addition, the barrack-room accommodation is required. If my hon. Friend will go to any dockyard in this country and show me where there is free accommodation, I will look into it to-morrow morning; but it does not exist.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his anxiety about the question of storage. When I first came to this office and saw the amount of money that had to be spent in sheer storage, I was somewhat astounded, but the fact is that if you are to have an efficient Navy you not only have to have ships and men, but you have to have guns and ammunition, and you have to store these, generally speaking, in some definite place, either above ground or underground. As regards guns and ammunition, it is a big problem. I am very glad to say that the new magazine depot, which is to cost £3,000,000, will be in Wales at Fishguard. You cannot put this type of magazine right in the middle of a depressed area, for a great variety of reasons which will be obvious to the House, but I am glad to think that it is to be in Wales, and that it will mean at any rate some additional labour while it is under construction, and when it is finished some permanent labour will be required for its maintenance.
With regard to the question of oil storage, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare, and also by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), I do not think that this House is the place to go into it in any detail, but I entirely agree with what the hon. and gallant Member said about Malta. When, however, you are dealing with this country, the question of oil storage is a rather more complicated question. The problem of ensuring adequate protection from attack is one which, as everybody in the House knows, is of considerable complexity, but let me reassure the hon. Member for Aberdare. I could not say this last year, but I can say now from this Box that there is the most complete coordination between the three Services on the whole question of oil and oil storage. It has been receiving intensive study during the whole year, accompanied by a very considerable amount of experiment. For reasons which I think will be fairly

obvious, I am not in a position to make a statement as to the precise measures which are being taken. The actual Vote for oil storage is a fairly normal one compared with those of recent years, and is part of the general system of storing oil which has been in operation for the last five or six years.

Mr. G. Hall: Surely the hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether, if oil is to be stored, it is intended that it should be stored underground or in tanks on the surface? I do not ask him to state the location of the storage.

Mr. Lindsay: I am afraid it would be quite impossible for me to say at this moment, or perhaps at any moment, what the exact policy in regard to underground storage is. It is very easy to go from the question whether it is above ground or underground to the question where it is, and there are obvious reasons why I should not go into any great detail on this question. The hon. Gentleman raised in a very few words the old question of coal and oil. As far as low temperature carbonisation is concerned, the oil received from that source is excellent from the point of view of the Navy, but its cost is approximately three times that of similar imported oil.

Mr. James Griffith: That is a very interesting statement. We have pressed for information times without number as to what is the cost of oil produced from coal, and all the time we have been told, "We cannot tell you; we are still in the experimental stage." Now the hon. Gentleman has made a very important statement, and we should like to know on what authority it is based.

Mr. Lindsay: I very much hope that I shall not be expected, as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, to make a statement from this Box on the question of oil from coal. There is a Minister of Mines, who is much more qualified to deal with that side of the question, and a Minister for the Coordination of Defence, who is looking at the problem as a whole. I think that that is a very much more businesslike method of dealing with the matter. The question of oil from coal is peculiarly under the control of the Mines Department, and, as it affects defence, under the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I have answered the question in very brief outline because it affects the


Navy, which we are discussing this afternoon, and because my hon. Friend put the question to me.

Mr. G. Hall: I understand that it is only a very small proportion of the fuel oil for the Navy that is being purchased from that source, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to any purchases of oil produced from shale in Scotland. Can he tell us the amount of oil purchased which has been produced from coal, and give us the precise particulars in connection with this matter, because it is rather important in regard to the question of oil from coal generally?

Mr. Lindsay: I can say generally that the amount is small, but I merely wanted to give a relative figure. You have to balance the question of defence needs and the cost to the community. We have tried some small experiments; we have bought a certain amount; and generally speaking the cost is about three times that of imported oil. I only wish to make that general statement, leaving other Ministers to go into details.
I think the only other question raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare was the question of Singapore. The reason for what looks like an increase over two or three years is simply and solely that there was what is called a truncated scheme, which cut out several very heavy items. Those items have now been replaced. In the figure of £640,000 for this year is included one very important piece of work which formed part of the truncated scheme, namely, the completion of the North Wall with a solid wall to allow for increased accommodation for capital ships. The increase due to capital ships is about 50 per cent. as compared with the original scheme. If I may give a general picture of the Singapore Base at this moment, I would say that it is like a house where the foundations have been well laid and the scaffolding is still up, but where you know that, in a very few months in the case of the house, or in a very few years in the case of the Singapore Base, the whole picture will be completed. I do not think hon. Members will desire me to go into great detail about the transit sheds, the boom defence depot, the armament depots, the oiling facilities and so on, but when the Base is completed it is not expected that there will be any material addition to this cost,

which really represents the original scheme put back. The Jackson contract is finished, and we now know pretty clearly what will be the future expense as far as the Navy is concerned, and I think also as regards the other Services.
As the hon. Member for Aberdare will know, there will be additions next year and the year following, naturally, but the total cost of the Singapore Base can now be estimated with some accuracy; indeed, the hon. Gentleman gave the figures. When it is completed it will be, as the First Lord said in his speech last week, the most complete and the most tangible expression that in the Pacific we are prepared to defend the interests which we have there. There is nothing aggressive about it. It stands there, 4,000 miles away from Japan, for the protection of Australia, New Zealand, and the very important interests of this country in the Pacific Ocean. The only other reason for an increase in Vote 10 is that where you have capital ships you have to have docks to which they can go to refit. The only other signal examples of increases are at Devonport and at Gibraltar. If the Navy is to be mobile, it is perfectly clear that docks must be available for its capital ships, not only at home but in the Mediterranean and the Pacific. I hope that with these few explanations the House will pass the Vote.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Could the hon. Gentleman answer my question about the possibility of underground accommodation?

Major Lloyd George: The Civil Lord referred to the provision of a certain amount of temporary employment and a certain amount of permanent employment. Could he give an indication of what that will be?

Mr. Lindsay: I am not suggesting that any great amount of permanent employment will be provided, but there will be the maintenance of the magazine depot at Fishguard.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The hon. Gentleman has said that oil produced from coat costs three times as much as ordinary oil. He may not have the figures by him at the moment, but would it be possible for him to make them available to us, because we are very interested in that aspect of the matter?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should like to point out that the hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon is of very grave importance for the mining industry. We realise that one of the main avenues along which the coalmining industry of this country can get new activity and prosperity is by the development of the by-product side of the industry, and particularly the extraction of oil from coal for the supply of our own needs. In this House we have been told all along that no statement could be made because the matter was still in the experimental stage. The hon. Gentleman this afternoon has made a very important statement. It is the first real indication that has been given of the relative position of coal-produced oil and imported oil, and the impression that will be gathered in the country by technicians, industrialists and others who are interested will be that it is a hopeless proposition. If home-produced oil is costing the authorities three times the amount that they pay for imported oil, the position is hopeless and absolutely impossible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to create an impression of that kind, and, therefore, he will appreciate that those of us who are concerned about the mining industry and those employed in it, and about its further development, are entitled to ask him to speak again on this matter. Are these approximate figures, and on what are they based? The Admiralty are obviously purchasing home-produced oil, and we ought to be told far more than we have been told, as it is important that the impression should not go out to the country that the position is so absolutely hopeless.
When this matter was raised in this House many years ago at the time the Billingham plant was being put down, it was agreed that certain protective measures should be given to this process; that there should be a protective tariff to make it possible to obtain home-produced oil at a competitive figure. I am positive that the estimate was not based on home-produced oil costing three times the amount of imported oil. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to be more explicit, otherwise his statement this afternoon will create a very definite impression in the country and cause much harm to this new industry. Germany is making rapid strides. Last summer I was in Czecho-

slovakia and part of Germany with a colleague, and we gathered that they are making rapid progress in extracting oil from coal. They are at the moment putting down at least five new plants to extract oil from coal. If they are making all these strides, we would not like the impression to go out from the House of Commons that the prospects of this new industry are as poor as the figures of the hon. Member indicate.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I will give one very short answer. I was not quoting an exact figure. I simply wanted to protect the Admiralty from the least possible accusation that they were taking no measures to get oil supplies from this country. There is a Ministry of Mines to deal with the larger question of oil from coal.

Mr. Alexander: Is your quotation of three times the cost for fuel oil, or is that the general cost?

Mr. Lindsay: That is the general cost. The very much larger question of what is happening in Germany is not really a case for me to go into from this Box this afternoon. It is much more appropriate for the Secretary for Mines and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to deal with the matter as a whole.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman has not really answered the point. I should imagine that it is possible for him to provide the House with the figures upon which his statement was based. They are not confidential figures which would disclose to other nations things which ought not to be known, but, surely, we are entitled to hear from the hon. Gentleman the real amounts which he is paying for oil from coal, and for general oil. May we have the figures?

6.36 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I think that my hon. Friend would probably be out of order if he spoke three or four times. Do not let hon. Members opposite take away the impression that we regard the experiment as in any way hopeless, or that upon any figure that we may have given from the very small data which we have at present, they should base the conclusion that the experiment is hopeless. The position of the Admiralty is, that we should be delighted to see the success of the experiment. Obviously, it would be


immensely to the advantage of the Navy if we could depend upon home-produced oil rather than foreign imported oil. As far as we are concerned, we shall give every encouragement we can to the experiment. I have been into the details of the experiment myself, and I can tell hon. Members that, as far as the Admiralty are concerned, we do not appear to have enough data upon which to base the kind of conclusions which hon. Members may perhaps have been tempted to draw this afternoon. The figure of 3 to 1 is based upon very little data and really would not justify any hon. Member in drawing this or that conclusion from the experiment. It is a very small-scale production, and I understand that at present it has mainly been directed into channels of petrol rather than fuel oil. I can tell hon. Members that my advisers are watching the experiment not only with great interest, but with great sympathy, and we should not at all admit the fact that the price, which may be due to the very small scope of the experiment and upon the data of a few years, is going to be the price of the future, or the kind of price that we should take as evidence that the experiment had failed.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: We are obliged to the First Lord for that reassurance, but we are in somewhat of a difficulty because we cannot really discuss this matter in detail without having Vote 8 which has not been put down by the Government. It is a very important one, covering the construction of warships and various things of that kind. I am hopeful that before we have finished with voting the money for the coming financial year, these Votes will actually be debated and not left to fall under the guillotine. These are very important questions in regard to construction upon which we ought to receive information. While I do not propose to take up any more time I ought to say that the answers given with regard to the very heavy expenditure for the establishments are far from satisfactory. We want to see, as the Civil Lord wants to see, proper accommodation provided for recruiting. When you consider the actual personnel for which you are asking you can hardly expect us to believe that there is a real national emergency

with regard to the special school buildings.

REPORT [16TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported:

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1937.

1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 168,900, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,488,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,867,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Army Reserve (to a number not exceeding 131,500, all ranks), Supplementary Reserve (to a number not exceeding 50,717, all ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 201,439, all ranks), Officers Training Corps, and Colonial Militia, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1938."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding 3,856,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,026,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,622,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1938."

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,594,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £231,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Civil Superannuation and other Non-Effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938."

ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) ESTIMATE, 1937.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £582,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge (reduced by a sum not exceeding £100,000, to be transferred from the Supplies Suspense Account), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Expense of the Royal Ordnance Factories, the Cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, etc."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936.

10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for expenditure not provided for in the Army Estimates for the year."

ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1936.

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for expenditure not provided for in the Army (Royal Ordnance Factories) Estimate for the year.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I beg to move, to leave out "168,900," and to insert "168,800."
I move the reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to a question which I find has, in fact, already been discussed very fully on the same Vote in connection with the Navy Estimates, where apparently the same difficulties and proposals are presenting themselves. I listened to the discussion on the Navy Estimates, and I found that there also there is a shortage of officers. Hon. Members are proposing that it should be met by promotion from the lower deck. The shortage of officers in the Army is far greater than the shortage of officers in the Navy. I see from the Paper explaining this Vote that it amounts now to 98o officers, which, I should think, is 10 times as much as the shortage in the Navy. During the discussion of the Navy Estimates, I was interested to notice that the Army was almost referred to as the model for democratic promotion, but lest hon. Members should be misled, I must point out that, if you take the average of the last five years, the promotions in the Army have been about 25 a year. I am afraid that my colleagues in discussing the Navy Estimates were misled by that figure, because it does not represent genuine promotion from the ranks. It

consists to an indefinite but very large extent of those who are promoted by a kind of back-door which the public schools have provided for themselves largely for boys who are unable to pass even the ordinary Army examination. Therefore the number of real promotions from the ranks in the Army is far smaller than the 25 which I have estimated.
This system seems to be the least defensible as a consequence of some figures which the Secretary of State for War gave during his Estimates speech. He told us that among the non-commissioned officers in the Army 18,000 higher certificates had been obtained and 1,100 special certificates. The House will recognise that these higher certificates are obtained by men who, in addition to this intellectual qualification have great military qualifications. The higher certificates are mostly held by sergeants, and, in fact, you cannot rise higher than a sergeant unless you have the higher certificate. The standard of education represented by these higher certificates which they hold is not to be despised. I have talked about these higher certificates with Army officers and have looked at the examination papers, and have even attended the classes that are held in teaching for the examination, and I agree that the higher certificate which a sergeant takes is about equivalent to the matriculation standard. That is a higher standard than is required for an officer from a public school. Officers from public schools are admitted to examination if they have passed the schools certificate, which is a lower standard than matriculation. Moreover, by the system of nomination by the Army Council, boys can become officers without even passing the school certificate. They can become officers by nomination if they come from the small charmed circle of the public schools.
So at present we have the anomalous position that men who have passed an examination of the matriculation standard, who have obviously considerable military qualities, because they have risen to the rank of sergeant. are not considered suitable to be officers, whereas boys who cannot pass the schools' certificate and who would not be accepted for anything but the lowest positions in a commercial firm can at 18 go in and become officers in a couple of years. The argument for it is the most complete relic of snobbery that is left, and every Service Member


in the House knows it. It is the belief that the officer ought to be a gentleman and that the soldier likes to be led by a gentleman. That is the prevailing opinion of the officers' mess, but I do not find it among ex-service men. Particularly I do not find it among the noncommissioned officers of the ex-service men. This conception was understandable some years ago when an officer lived largely on his own means and when by entering the Army he was conferring a kind of favour upon the nation by doing unpaid work, but nowadays the officer has struck. He has payment on which he can live. We have now got to a position in which half of the officers are living on their pay. There was a discussion the other day as to whether they were paid enough. I think they are if you are going to have boys of no higher mental qualification than at present. At 33 a man who has not been able to pass the school certificates is earning £500 or £600 a year, with all the amenities and pleasures of Army life, which are very great. If you are going to have these demands for higher pay, you must extend the scope so that you draw on a wider field.
There is another feature of the situation which has quite altered the whole basis from which any such position can be defended. That is the mechanisation of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has the credit of having carried through in the last year by far the greatest scheme of mechanisation since the close of the War, but it is clear that, if you are going to have this material development, it must be accompanied by a parallel mental development of those who have to control it. This was the subject of two articles by the military correspondent of the "Times" on Friday and Saturday. I sometimes wonder what is the exact degree of popularity in the War Office of the military correspondent of the "Times." He is certainly a very refreshing person to the rest of us. He has spoken on this subject in the plainest terms. He has pointed out that you have no right to ask the public to spend these tens of millions on this extraordinary development of mechanical equipment unless you have the scientific brains that can control it. He has suggested very delicately that the officers in the Army at present drawn from the narrow circle of public schoolboys suffer from in-

adequate mental adjustment. I asked the right hon. Gentleman last year whether he would institute an inquiry into this subject, and last week he told me that there was an inquiry being conducted. I should like him to tell us more in detail what is the nature of the inquiry. If there is to be a real inquiry by a committee, it should be conducted largely by civilian minds and not simply by service advisories.
This caste system has such a complete hold upon the minds of officers that it is impossible for them to conceive that it could be undermined from the base. I notice that there are a number of Service Members in the House who make the most radical proposals, but I have never heard one of them deal with this subject. Their caste prejudice is so great that their radicalism cannot face it, and any mention of the subject only comes from these benches. I want civilian minds because I think they will look at this subject from a rather broad angle. After all, we are a democracy. A democracy like ours is efficient in peace and, I believe, most formidable in war, provided you make use of it by obtaining for the most responsible positions the ablest minds and the strongest characters in the country from the whole range of democracy itself. I see pictures in the papers of hundreds of thousands of men belonging to the Robot nations which are now sprawling over Europe. If I were a citizen of one of those countries; that would terrify me about the future of my country. One thing I learn when I go to a museum is that the species that have disappeared are those which had enormous bodies and pin-point brains. The ordinary Army mess in this country is trying to confine its officers to practically a pin-point of the population. Obviously it cannot survive. It is the most backward feature left anywhere in our public life. It is obvious now that there is no justification for it. The officers' mess realise that they are living on public funds on a standard on which they entirely maintain themselves, and they must subject themselves to the same pressure of competition from able men outside the little circle that other occupations are being compelled to do.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I will resist the temptation to take up the right hon.


Gentleman's challenge on the question of caste among officers because I am perhaps too obviously a protagonist of one section, but my views on the Army have always been that the British Army to-day is quite good enough in quality and that what we have to concentrate upon is getting a sufficient quantity in the way of recruits. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he can give a reply to a specific point put to him on the question of the extension of the King's Roll system, so as to include ex-service men as well as disabled men. Could not the percentage to be employed by firms before they can qualify for the King's Roll be increased, and could not Government contracts be limited in some degree to firms upon the King's Roll?

6.59 p.m.

Sir Walter Smiles: I was struck by the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I have a great deal of sympathy with him. The last War was won by the civilian soldier. Although the regular soldier trained us and set us an example, when it came to the final show down, the War was won by the nation and by the civilian soldier. Will the right hon. Gentleman get a better Army if he throws open more promotion to the men in the ranks than if he stands to the rigid class system that exists at present? The right hon. Gentleman had a gallant career in the Army and he must have seen for himself the men who rose from the ranks and the things they did, men who, if there had not been a war, would not have had the opportunity to show their mettle. In peace time one thinks about the Army, and the Navy, as professions in which one gets promotion by getting older. But when a war comes it is a very different thing, and it is then that merit counts. In peace time no man in the ranks has anything like the same opportunity that he has in war. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has in the ranks of his Line Regiments now men who, if they were given a chance in war, might rise to the highest positions.
Three weeks ago a friend of mine said to me that he was going to see his son, who was in the Army. He had got so tired of working in a bank in the city that he left and enlisted. He had a public school education. When I asked my friend, "Has he any chance of getting any promotion from the ranks?" he

said, "No, he is too old, but he likes the Army life and work, and would sooner do that than anything else." It was what his father said to me that inspired some questions I put in the House about the amount of money deducted from a soldier's pay for cleaning apparatus, etc., and I would thank the right hon. Gentleman for the advances he has made in this direction. It will be appreciated by men of all ranks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also think what some of the civilians did who joined in the War. We would like to feel that there were more prospects for young fellows who feel that their careers are in the Army, and that the road was open to them for promotion.

7.4 13.m.

Mr. Sanders: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) on the admirable first portion of his speech. My right hon. Friend who dealt with the sources of supply of officers will feel encouraged that at last, from the other side, we have received from an hon. Member whose ancestor defended so well the principle of self-help, support for which we have been longing for a considerable time. The necessity of widening the source of supply of officers becomes more urgent every day. No one of my age will deny that in the romantic days of warfare which have now disappeared, it was considered that almost the only things required of an officer were a good appearance and bravery, and that his men could rely on his being able to lead them. But it is evidence in these days, when more and more brains are required, that that qualification of the officer must be extended.
My memory reawakened this afternoon when I heard the First Lord of the Admiralty recall some of his experiences on the Higher Education Committee of the London County Council, on which I was a colleague with him, and I recalled with a shock that when we were organising the first of the London County Council's secondary schools our education adviser told us that it would be advisable at a certain stage in the arrangements to have a parallel form, because at that stage education began to be a little difficult, and boys that were more or less backward would have to be detained in this parallel class. He added as an aside, that in most schools this parallel class was known as


the Army class, which indicated what I have just said, that brains in those days were not considered to be a vital necessity for officers.
I realised, too, during the War, the need for drawing our officers from a wider source when I was serving the Government in Russia. I have an interesting recollection of meeting there the American representative of a great firm that supplied the Russian Army with mechanical trench diggers. He had been sent over because the Russian Army officials had informed the firm that the trench diggers would not work. He went to the front, took off his coat, went under the tractor and turned a screw, and the tractor worked admirably. To his astonishment the Russian engineer officers thought that he had degraded himself as a gentleman engineer by getting on the ground and showing that he understood the make-up of the machines. I do not suggest that would have happened in our Engineer Corps, but it indicates what the Army mind was in Russia, and shows that it was even then of the same type as ours was, perhaps, 50 or 60 years ago. A high military authority with great records is not the type of man that should be entrusted with decisions regarding improvements or changes in the Army. I suppose our second greatest general, and one of our greatest administrators, was the Duke of Wellington, but it is on record that he opposed the introduction of any change in the arms used by the British soldier on the ground that the arms used at Waterloo were good enough for all time.
I hope the Secretary of State will take advice from people who have not been brought up entirely in military circles or service in considering this problem of widening the field from which our officers are drawn. Many reasons that will be difficult to overcome were given why recruiting is backward. There is one to which I would like to call attention, and which, I think, it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman, with the aid of his colleagues, to remove. It is embodied in a question put by an hon. Member opposite on 22nd February:
To ask the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many ex-service men of the Great War are said to be becoming prematurely aged or incapacitated as a result of the general after-effects of their war service and should receive pension for their condition; and whether he will make a statement upon the attitude of his Department to

such cases and the possibility of pensions being granted to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1937; col. 1619, Vol. 320.]
Members on this side receive requests and complaints from large numbers of men among their constituents concerning the after-effects of their War service for which they get no assistance from the Ministry of Pensions, and others from men receiving small pensions who suddenly break down, according to their doctors, because of the after-results of War service and whose cases cannot be reopened. I had one theother day of a man who passed A1, a highly respectable artisan, with two sons who are keeping the home going for him, who did good service and was invalided out of the Army, given 8s. a week pension, went to work, developed acute heart trouble, and now his doctor will not allow him to do a hand's turn towards earning his living. He said to me, "What can I say to my sons when they want to join the Territorials or the Regular Army if this is the treatment meted out to me after I have served my country?" If the Secretary of State will multiply these little centres of discontent by thousands he will understand why there is a difficulty in getting men to join the Army. There are hundreds of cases, and whether the men are justified or not in believing that their premature break down is due to what they went through during the War, there is a sense of injustice which rankles, and these men sometimes have a very open way of expressing their sense of injustice. I suggest that the Secretary of State should try to influence his colleagues, especially the Minister of Pensions, to see whether something cannot be done to remove this sense of acute grievance.

7.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders) is well aware that I have no control over the Minister of Pensions, but he was speaking from the point of view of the effect these cases have on recruiting. He will be interested to learn that I had this question brought to my notice earlier in the year and communicated with the Minister of Pensions, who was good enough to send me a long reply in which he dealt with all the hard cases which had been brought to his notice within the period of one year. I suggested that it might be possible, as these pensioners were gradually passing away,


that these hard cases might be treated more generously, and I was deeply impressed, and I am sure the hon. Member would have been, to find how few there were of these cases and how when they were brought up in the House of Commons and investigated, many of them were proved not to be hard cases, but cases which had been generously treated. While I am in agreement with the hon. Member that one hard case does an enormous amount of harm and creates a feeling of discouragement, yet I can assure him that I have looked carefully into this matter and I was relieved, indeed almost surprised, at the satisfactory reply and the strength of the case which the Minister of Pensions was able to put up.
Let me deal shortly with the suggestion for a new use of the King's Roll. The King's Roll was a separate step taken after the War to promote the interests of disabled soldiers. That category is gradually disappearing. We have gone carefully into the matter as to whether it would be wise to adopt the suggestion Made by the hon. Member. On the whole we are inclined to the view that it would be a mistake at present to change the nature of the King's Roll, and that it might be confusing to institute a new King's Roll before the purpose and utility of the present Roll has expired. I am quite willing to consider any further representations on the subject, my mind is still Open, but, on the whole, there are other and more useful steps which can be taken to encourage recruitment for the Army.
The main subject of the Debate has been similar to that on the Senior Service. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate resented the suggestion that the Army was a more democratic service than the Navy. That is an old argument which I have heard hotly disputed from both sides, but, at any rate, we have one or two generals who have risen from the ranks and at least one Field-Marshal, and I do not think the Navy can produce a record to beat that. On general grounds I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that more should be done, and I hope more will be done to encourage an increase in the recruitment of officers from the ranks. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was fair when he suggested that all that was required to enter the military colleges was a school certificate Whereas those who take commis-

sions are required to pass the higher education examination which is equivalent to matriculation. All school candidates who pass into the military colleges are obliged to pass the Army entrance examination satisfactorily and boys from public schools either have to hold the school certificate, the equivalent of that required from the Army candidate, or be recommended specially, in a few cases, before they can sit for the examination. All cadets have to qualify in the passing out examination before they are commissioned.
At the same time it is equally misleading to judge a man's intelligence by the examinations he passes when he is 17 or 18 years of age and the examinations he can pass when he is 23 or 24. Many a boy who may fail to pass the school certificate examination at 18 may be perfectly able to pass matriculation three or four years later. These examinations are no sure test of a man's ability, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be aware that one of the distinguished generals in the Great War, Sir Henry Wilson, failed three times to pass into the Military College at Sandhurst and got in through the Militia. Criticisms have been passed on Sir Henry Wilson, but no one ever thought that he was lacking in mental equipment or judgment, as the military correspondent of the "Times" has very well pointed out. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office will pay great attention to everything which falls from the pen of this distinguished writer. I have read the two articles; I have read the volumes which have recently appeared under his name in which these two articles are included.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider that it was of little use putting any recommendation forward or setting up any committee which consisted solely of Army officers. I beg him to disabuse his mind of this prejudice. He says that they are also prejudiced; it is the old retort of a tu quoque. I dare say there is great prejudice in the minds of civilians as to the narrowness of outlook of the military mind. I have no doubt that those who may have seen very little military service, and possibly have only come into contact with non-commissioned officers of no great distinction or future, who will not rise higher in the Service, may imagine that they are fair specimens


of the very fine intelligence shown by those who are responsible for the control and the training of the Army. I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to pay a visit to the Staff College and discuss these and other matters with men who are really rising to the top of the Army, who have already reached high positions, he would take an entirely different view with regard to their prejudices or narrowness of mind. They are just as fit as any body of men who can be selected in any of the professions. All professions have their limitations, even politicians are sometimes criticised, and these officers who have had experience of the Army, are quite competent to sit on any matter which concerns the future and welfare of the Army. This committee has definitely been set up. It is a military committee, and its terms of reference are:
to investigate the shortage of candidates who present themselves for commission; to consider the conditions under which such candidates may be obtained, and to make recommendations.
I have spoken to the members of the committee and have impressed on them the importance that is attached to a considerable increase in the number of people who shall be available for commission in future from the ranks. I hope the committee will produce a useful and fertile report, and that within a year's time the right hon. Gentleman and I will both be satisfied.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will their report be made available to the public?

Mr. Cooper: I think we had better see the report first.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Secretary of State has given us some ground for satisfaction by the closing sentences of his speech. It is a good thing to know that this matter is to be investigated by a committee, but I would suggest that the committee should not be entirely confined to officers and that it might be as well to widen its outlook by including one or two people who are not at present officers in the Army. I would not go as far as my right hon. Friend and say that it should be an entirely non-army committee.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I did not suggest that.

Mr. Ede: For instance, the committee which was set up by the Minister of

Transport to inquire into the distribution of electricity was Sir John Snell, the most distinguished electrical engineer in the country, and Sir Henry McGowan, a distinguished man in commerce, who has risen from the ranks and who is now disguised under some other name which I cannot recall at the moment. I believe he now has a seat in another place. There was added an accountant of great distinction, so that all types of mind were represented on a very technical problem
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who listened to the discussion on the Navy was impressed with what the First Lord said about the advantage of getting into touch with local education authorities. There are a great number of youths of 16, 17 and 18 in secondary schools, who have to consider the life they will take up. I cannot recall in the many discussions I have had with the parents of such boys that it was ever suggested that one of the armed forces of the Crown would present an appropriate future career. Many of them go into banks, and I have no doubt that in a few years they feel that they would prefer something a little more active. If they could be attracted at this stage into the Army it would be a good thing indeed for the Army. Millions of pounds are spent every year in educating these youths, and I think it is desirable that, if they are appropriate material for absorption into the commissioned ranks of the Service, every facility should be afforded them and there should be an effort to establish a liaison, as was suggested by the First Lord of the Admiralty, between the schools and the Service.
There is one thing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said with regard to the Navy which, I gather, does not exist at the moment in the Army. The hon. and gallant. Member suggested that the question of expense was a deterrent to youths in the Navy or contemplating going into the Navy thinking that a commission was possible, and I gathered that the officer's wife and the bluejacket's wife were so far apart that one really could not expect a bluejacket to take his wife into the company of the other. We all know that the colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady are sisters under their skin, and apparently it has been recognised for a long time that the particular difficulty which troubles the hon.


and gallant Gentleman does not exist in the Army. I believe that if the recruitment of officers from all classes of the community were made easier, the right hon. Gentleman would to a very large extent solve the problem of recruiting for the ranks. It must be realised—and I speak as the representative of a great industrial constituency—that there is a strong feeling among certain sections of the industrial community that the Army would be used in the event of an industrial dispute on behalf of one side to the dispute, and that it is officered by people whose sympathies would be entirely with one side in any such dispute. If the basis of recruitment for the officer class were widened, that idea would be very largely removed from the minds of the industrial population. As long as it is believed, rightly or wrongly, that the officers are drawn from one particular class, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if that prejudice exists in those parts of the country from which he must hope to get a substantial number of recruits if ever the ranks of the Army are to be filled.
I am very glad that the committee is to be set up, but even at this stage I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot put on the committee somebody associated with the universities and somebody who has practical knowledge of the problem of the senior boys in the secondary schools with a view to finding out whether some assistance could not be obtained in throwing open that very wide field of recruitment for the Service. After all, the number of boys who go into the secondary schools is very large indeed. I will give a personal illustration which will show the House the extent to which the number has increased during the lifetime of those of us here. I sat for the county junior scholarship of an elementary school in Surrey in 1895, and there were 64 candidates for 32 places. This year, in the same county, there were 5,000 candidates for 750 places. There are over 20 times as many boys going into the secondary schools from the elementary schools as there were 40 years ago, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that such a wide field of recruitment for the officers of the Army ought not to be ignored and that he ought to attempt to establish with the authorities of the schools the kind of sympathetic approach which the First Lord of the Ad-

miralty indicated he wished to have when he was dealing with his Service earlier this afternoon.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that he is setting up a committee, but I gathered that it is to be entirely confined to serving officers.

Mr. Cooper: And civil servants.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The terms of reference of the committee show that it is one of a very wide character, and will deal not only with the topic of promotion from the ranks, but such topics as whether a large and predominant section of officers will be obtained from the universities or by special entry at the age of 16 or so from the secondary schools as distinct from the public schools. I doubt whether a committee consisting simply of officers and civil servants will have the wide experience necessary to deal with these general avenues, and I should have thought that the Committee might very well have been reinforced by somebody from the universities who is competent in this work and by the headmaster of a big secondary school who knows the type of boys now going to the secondary schools as distinct from the public schools and who would, I think, make very valuable suggestions for a great new source of recruitment for the class which the right hon. Gentleman is considering.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter from the point of view of making this Committee effective. Moreover, it would be very satisfactory if the report which the Committee would produce could be accepted as that of a body which had considered the matter from a sufficient breadth of view. A body consisting mainly of officers, with one or two civil servants thrown in, would still be considered by some as justifying the view I have expressed—a view which the right hon. Gentleman called prejudiced—that the existing system is so powerful in their minds that they cannot bring a really open mind to the possibility of fundamentally changing it. I think that is a point of view which it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should take into account if he wishes the report to be accepted as a settlement of the problem for some years to come.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give a decision now, but I am prepared to consider the extension of the committee.

Question put, "That '168,900' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 97.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Petherick, M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W, J.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Apsley, Lord
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hamilton, Sir G, C.
Rankin, Sir R.


Assheton, R.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Atholl, Duchess of
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bernays, R. H.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Horsbrugh, Florenoe



Blaker, Sir R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Boulton, W. W.
Hunter, T.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brisuce, Capt. R. G.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salt, E. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Scott, Lord William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Bull, B. B.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Simmonds, O. E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Somerset, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Leckie, J. A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Leech, Dr. d. W.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lees-Jones, J.
Spens, W. P.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S, G'gs)
Lindsay, K. M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cranborne, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.


Crooke, J. S.
MacDonald, Sir Murdooh (Inverness)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
MeEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Marmingham-Buller, Sir M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Dawson, Sir P.
Margeseon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Turton, R. H.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Conner, P. W.
Mellor, Sir d. S. P. (Tamworth)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eastwood, J. F.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wedderburn, H. d. S.


Emery, J. F.
Munro, P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Nail, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H.
Withers, Sir d. d.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Everard, W. L.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wragg, H.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Owen, Major G.



Gluokstein, L. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Granville, E. L.
Peat, C. U.
Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Sir G.
Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Brooke, W.
Dalton, H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Adamson, W. M.
Cassells, T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Charleton, H. C.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Ammon, C. G.
Chater, D.
Ede, J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Barnes, A. J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Barr, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Gallacher, W.


Bellenger, F. J.
Cove, W. G.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Benson, G.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Bevan, A.
Daggar, G.
Groves, T. E.




Hall, G. H. (Anerdare)
Marshall, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)
Maxton, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hardie, G. D.
Messer, F.
Smith, Rt. Han. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Hayday, A.
Milner, Major J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, T. (Tradeaton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, C.


Hollins, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hopkin, D.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


John, W.
Paling, W.
Thorne, W.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parker, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Ptthiok-Lawrence, F. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Lawson, J. J.
Potts, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Leach, W.
Price, M. P.
Watson, W. McL.


Lee, F.
Pritt, D. N.
Westwood, J.


Leslie, J. R.
Ridley, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lunn, W.
Riley, B.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Macdonald, G. (Inoe)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C, H. (Attereliffe)


McGhee, H. G.
Rowson, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


McGovarn, J.
Sanders, W. S.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


MacLaron, A.
Sexton, T. M.



Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Ninth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Clarke: As a serving Territorial officer I rise with some diffidence to take part in this Debate. But I am also a member of two Territorial Force Associations, and in that capacity I should like respectfully to record the deep appreciation with which I read the Estimates and the even greater appreciation with which I heard the Secretary of State enlarge on them on Monday afternoon. The work of the Territorial Force Associations during the last few years has not been very happy work. We have had to refuse grants to objects which we knew were worthy. We have had to check initiative, to curtail training, and to reduce the wages of clerks and storemen throughout the Territorial Army. It has been even worse for the units themselves, because their training and recruiting have been very seriously curtailed. Therefore, we particularly welcome the entire restoration of the 5 per cent. cut which had to be made in the economy years. It was also very good news that the training grant is to be increased. By a rather curious anomaly last year, although in many ways the Territorial Army was better off, our training grant was really reduced, because it remained stationary while pay and allowances were increased, with the result that there was less to spend on actual training.
I was also very glad to hear that there will be practically a fourfold increase in the amount available for what we call "lands, ranges and buildings." I cannot emphasise too much the importance to the Territorial unit of its drill hall. Many of the existing drill halls are very old, built by public subscription in many cases in Victorian days for the old Volunteers, and it is very hard on them to compete in providing entertainment and facilities for recreation, gymnastics and that sort of thing with the facilities which the great towns offer for young men. The concessions to which I have referred were described in detail by the Secretary of State, and I hope it is not too much to anticipate that there may be even more of them than were specifically mentioned. I hope, however, that we shall not be accused of being greedy. I can assure the House that we are not greedy, but we really are hungry. We are hungry with the hunger of a very healthy organisation, which has been through a lot of lean years. In the case of one association whose headquarters are at Brighton, they may be suffering from the same sort of hunger that we heard about in the Navy on Tuesday, when they have to have four meals a day because of the sea air. Most certainly we are hungry, and what has been given to us has made us wish for more.
I suggest very humbly that the following things would be of great additional assistance to us. First, an immediate instalment of equipment. I know that we shall get it, in due course, but even if we could have it lent to us at first it would be a great help. If war broke out we could return it to the Regular Army. At the beginning of the War in 1914 we had to give up our rifles and a good many of


our horses; but we got them back later. We had Japanese rifles instead. We gave them up cheerfully because we knew they were wanted, and we would do the same thing again. Some instalment of this kind would be a definite encouragement.
The infantry battalions are to have trench mortars in the not far off future. They were told they would be able to borrow some this summer, but I understand that that promise has had to be withdrawn; I do hope that it may be possible to reconsider this. With regard to "travelling-to-drill" allowances, we are, in spite of the last addition of I per cent., still receiving 1½ per cent. less than we used to receive for officers' out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, officers can claim to-day for distances under six miles. That in a large and scattered county means that training has to be curtailed. It does not matter so much in a big town where the drill halls are close together, but in a rural area where the officers have to cover considerable distances in going to the drills of their scattered detachments it is a different matter, and we require more than is needed in some of the towns.
The provision of physical training kit, something quite simple, rubber-soled shoes for one thing, would also be of assistance. Men who do physical training before breakfast and have to carry on through the day with the same clothes suffer a good deal of inconvenience. I understand, too, that some units are still without Army type respirators for training purposes. I should also like to call attention, with considerable diffidence, to a question in regard to anti-aircraft units. We know how essential it is that these units should be developed and brought up to strength as Soon as possible. On any agenda of a Territorial Force Association a great part of the time is taken up with discussing the needs of these units. But we know too that in a family if one child has to be favoured, although it may be necessary to favour it in the interests of that family, it sometimes does make things a little difficult. There is not any deep feeling about this matter, but I think that it would be quite easy to do something which would put what feeling does exist right, because it does exist to a certain extent.
The Territorial Army has been of some assistance to the Regular Army in the

last year in the matter of recruiting. I believe that about one in nine of the Regular recruits came from the Territorial Army. I wish we had been able to provide more. I do not think there is anything more characteristic of the Territorial Army than its devotion to its elder brother, the Regular Army, and its wish to help it. I listened to the Debate on Tuesday with regard to Regular Army recruiting and I felt that possibly one of the things that makes recruiting difficult is the fact that what one might call the outward glory of the Regular Army seems to have gone. Possibly that outward glory went with the loss of full dress. I remember as a boy the old ceremonial parade on the King's birthday and the pictures in the illustrated papers at Christmas of our Generals and, best of all, my own tin soldiers. They were all in full-dress uniforms, and I do feel that now all that has gone something that was attractive to young men has been lost. I hope that I am not too optimistic when I say that I have a sneaking hope that the blue uniform this year may in another year give place once again to the old full dress.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Emmott: I rise for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he would kindly give the House some elucidation of matters connected with the accommodation of that part of the Territorial Force which is concerned with antiaircraft defence. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken mentioned the general question but did not treat in any detail the particular matter which I wish to examine. One word about numbers. I observe in to-day's "Times" an interesting report on the figures of recruiting for the Territorial Force for February, and I was very pleased to note that they showed considerable improvement upon those that had gone before. For my particular purpose I was even more glad to notice that the largest increase which took place in February in recruiting for the Territorial Force was in the first and second anti-aircraft divisions. Still, the figures remain at a level which must negative complacency. The House may be interested if I give a few figures of the present strength of these divisions. The peace establishment of the first antiaircraft division is just over 21,000 and


its present strength is 8,294: a percentage of 39·5. The establishment of the second anti-aircraft division, formed only recently, is 19,860. Its strength is 7,580, or expressed in percentage 38.2. In considering the percentage the House should not of course forget the increase in the establishment involved in the conversion of these divisions to the work of antiaircraft defence.
But, however the House regards these figures, it will agree that both men and guns are useless without accommodation for the men themselves. It was actually stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his interesting and lucid speech two days ago, that recruiting had had to be closed down in more than one instance simply because there was no place for the men when they joined. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the extreme importance of accommodation for these anti-aircraft divisions. It is, of course, as the Memorandum points out, no easy matter to find sites for the 35 new headquarters and drill halls required in London and its outskirts. I should like to ask him, whether the statement on page 9 of the Memorandum refers only to the second anti-aircraft division, which is concerned with the defence of the Midlands and the North of England? If so, the House will notice that it is only hoped that accommodation for that division will be made for about half of the units in 1937, and for the whole only by the Summer of 1938. The Summer of 1938 is rather a long way off.
I should also like to ask what progress has been and is being made in the provision of accommodation for the 35 headquarters in London and its outskirts. How many sites have been bought; and in how many instances has building already begun, where building is necessary? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the date at which he anticipates that this accommodation for the first anti-aircraft division charged with the defence of London will be available?

8.6 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: I would like to call attention to the great variety of practice in the provision of civilian clerks at headquarters in the Territorial Army. An orderly room clerk is an essential man in the organisation of battalion and brigade

headquarters in these days, but this is not universally admitted by Territorial Associations throughout the country. One hears complaints. It is a point which makes a vast difference in the administration of a unit. I suggest that there should be a general rule in the case of headquarters of normal size, whether in the Infantry or the Artillery, that the pay of an orderly room clerk should be provided for. There are cases scattered up and down the country of air defence units being organised, whether new units or units converted from existing establishments, without proper inquiry as to whether the location of the headquarters and other circumstances are suitable from the point of view of recruiting. Battalions of infantry are being turned into antiaircraft gun detachments, Royal Engineers and so on. Then it is found that the headquarters are not satisfactory, and that it would have been better to have started organising the units de novo.
Regarding the transfer of officers, the War Office ought to take a more sympathetic and generous attitude towards the necessity which officers are under of making changes in uniform. This may not be a serious matter for an officer who has been serving in a gunnery brigade and is now turning over to antiaircraft, but for an officer in the infantry suddenly to turn over to the Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers and convert his uniform means expense. The scale of reimbursement is extraordinarily niggardly and has disgusted some of the officers almost to the point of driving them out. I submit that it is only reasonable that these officers should have some assistance in changing over. There has been some delay in appointing adjutants. Adjutants ought to be appointed for these converted units before the change-over takes place. Regarding warrant officers and enrolment staff, these ought to be selected on merit and posted quickly to the units. On the question of the difficulty of finding accommodation, one can appreciate that it is going to take time to make substantial additions, and, if it is found that a year or so must elapse before places are ready for headquarters, the question of allocation of units ought to be considered. If units are still without headquarters and equipment, the best course is to admit the mistake and convert some other unit or, as I would prefer it, create a new unit


de novo. It would be much more convenient in some cases to telescope two existing infantry battalions into one, and create an anti-aircraft unit separately. Instead of conversion, I suggest, amalgamation of existing units should take place and there should be creation of new units de novo.
I wish to raise another point. In the past there has been considerable difficulty as regards the position of men of the Territorial Army who, for the time being are out of work, when they go to camp. A man who is out of work, and in receipt of unemployment relief, finds himself in camp for 15 days drawing Army pay with or without marriage allowance. If his family at home suddenly find that they are not allowed to draw the unemployed benefit, which they have been receiving in the past, a great deal of hardship may be caused. Considerable feeling is being created about this matter. The War Office, I suggest, ought to get into touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board to see that this kind of position does not arise in the future. I am aware that the matter has been under consideration and that local arrangements have to some extent mitigated the hardship to which I refer, but the position is not clear and it ought to be made clear. I do not suggest that a large number of unemployed men go into the Territorial Army because they are unemployed. What happens is that a man who has had many years' service may suddenly find himself unemployed and may, against his own inclination, have to go on benefit of one kind or another. When such men go to camp there occurs this upset in their domestic arrangements which I have described. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will take this matter in hand with a view to a general pronouncement on the proper system to be adopted in these cases.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I realise the necessity which exists in these times for building up some kind of force such as the Territorial Army for home defence, but I wish to protest against some of the methods which are being adopted in recruiting for the Territorial Army. These methods are to be deprecated because they are apt to create friction in industry and may lead to serious consequences. In some parts of the North

we find that local territorial associations are concentrating upon certain factories and getting the employers to make all kinds of concessions to workers on condition that they join the Territorial Force. In this way they are creating differentiation in the conditions inside the factories. They are going so far in some cases that serious results are likely to follow inside the factories. It is a case of giving preferential treatment to men who join the force.

Sir J. Nall: Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith: That may be all right from the hon. Member's point of view, but it is not all right from the point of view of many poor people who are placed in the very position of which he has just been complaining. He has mentioned one instance. Apart from that, there are many men, as good as any of us in this House, who cannot see their way to join up in the Territorial Army and yet if this country needed defending, as it did in the last War, those men would probably rally to the defence of the country quicker than some of those who had been associated with this force previously. I would ask those responsible to stop this policy of creating friction in the workshops by differentiating between one workman and another and to pursue the more enlightened policy of making the service attractive to young men. I have been in one factory during the last 12 months in which I had almost to face a very serious situation as a result of the policy which is now being pursued.
I suggest that other methods should be adopted. For instance, instead of allowing military bands to perform only at places like Eastbourne and Bournemouth, why should they not be allowed to perform in the parks in the industrial centres of the North? Why should the people in those districts not be allowed to enjoy the music which they have a right to enjoy, but which they do not get the opportunity of enjoying to the same extent as the people in those resorts in the South which I have mentioned? Of course, people can listen on the wireless to music from many parts of the Continent, but in this country, and particularly in the North, unless in an enlightened municipality people have few opportunities of listening to these bands. That is only one of the methods which could be suggested. My main purpose, however, is


to protest against the present policy of obtaining recruits inside the factories. There should be a more scientific policy of making the service attractive and obtaining the men on the basis of merit and fitness instead of bringing pressure to bear as is being done at the present time. These methods are making the people concerned feel very uncomfortable, and may lead to a situation in which certain organisation will be forced to consider taking a stand in the matter. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the point I have raised and consult those who ought to be consulted in a representative capacity in the industrial areas, to find whether some alternative policy could not be adopted with better results.

8.22 p.m

Mr. Cooper: The speeches to which we have listened have been designed to suggest improvements in the Territorial Army. I must thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Lieut.-Colonel Clarke) for the tribute which he paid to the Department for what has been done in the past year. I assure him that his suggestions will be looked into and if it is possible in the future to extend still further the privileges and concessions which have already been granted to the Territorial Army, I will pay careful attention to the points raised by him.
The question of the headquarters for the new divisions is, as I indicated earlier in the Debate and in the Memorandum, one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal. It is difficult to find suitable sites, it is difficult to acquire them and it is difficult to set about providing the buildings as swiftly and as efficiently as we would like. But my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Emmott) must not think that, because all the sites of all the headquarters are not now available, therefore the new units are not being formed. It is true that in some instances recruiting has had to be damped down owing to the crowding of the units—sometimes two or three having to be accommodated in a building only intended for one. But although this is very inconvenient, it is not preventing us from getting on with the work. My hon. Friend was not quite correct in his interpretation of the statement in the Memorandum. That refers to two divisions,

the London Division and the Midland and Northern Division, and I hope that by the summer of next year all this work will be accomplished and as many new barracks will be set up in the Northern and Midland Division as there are in London. We are acquiring sites and setting up buildings as rapidly as we can.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall) is wrong in thinking, as he seemed to suggest, that adjutants of Territorial battalions are chosen by any other standard than merit. We are most careful to choose, as far as possible, people whom we consider to be well adapted for the work which they have to do. Wherever I have been I have heard the greatest satisfaction expressed with the adjutants.

Sir J. Nall: I did not suggest that any of them were unsuitable. I was complaining of the delay in getting them posted to their jobs.

Mr. Cooper: I am very glad to hear the hon. Member say that. Equally with regard to instructors, we try to get the best men for the jobs. With regard to the question of clerks, we endeavour at the War Office to make a uniform standard apply all over the country. While bearing in mind that policy, it is equally important to bear in mind the different local conditions, customs and demands. We must remember that it is a Territorial Army founded on a territorial basis under an association, and that associations vary all over the country. What differentiates it so much from the Regular Army is that we cannot run it in the same way as we can the Regular Army, in which we can have uniform standards all over the country, and tact and sympathy must be used in dealing with the Territorials.
The hon. Member who spoke last raised a point, which he thought an important point, whether there is any undue influence brought to bear on men to join the Territorial Army? I hope that nothing of the sort of being done. There was a paragraph in a newspaper earlier this week which spoke in the heading of intimidation being used to get men to join. When I read the paragraph I did not find a single instance of intimidation. I hope that there is not. We must make a great distinction between rewards and intimidation. The policy that is being


pursued now by a great many firms all over the country is to give the men who join the Territorial Army a free fortnight for attendance at camp which does not interfere with any other holiday to which they are entitled. That is giving men who join the Territorial Army an advantage which they deserve, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with me that it is desirable that firms should give this advantage. It is a voluntary army, and you cannot run a voluntary army unless everybody does his bit towards helping. Those employers of labour who cannot themselves join the Territorial Army can do their bit, and it often means sacrifices to them to give their men a fortnight's holiday apart from any other holiday to which they are entitled. There is a great line fixed between encouragement and intimidation. I am all for encouragement and for giving it to the greatest possible extent. I am all against any form of intimidation, and if anything of the kind is brought to my notice I shall do my best to prevent it.

Sir J. Nall: Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the change in the uniform for junior officers?

Mr. Cooper: The grievance has been brought to my notice for the first time by my hon. Friend. I have not heard of cases where hardship has been inflicted, but if he will bring any instances to my notice I will look into them.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I want to raise a point in order to obtain an explanation in regard to item G on page 218 of the Estimates, which deals with works and land for factories, etc., other than Royal Ordnance Factories. I realise that these factories should be managed by some individual who may be the owner of a factory which joins buildings erected by the War Department. What conditions are laid down in regard to their control? Is there any possibility of such a thing happening as happened after 1919, when some of these buildings, erected at the cost of the community, passed out of the hands of the

community, with the result that some people had a handsome present made to them? I hope that the Minister will make it clear that in expending this money upon these factories and this land the factories will still remain in the possession of the War Department although they are managed for the purposes of manufacture by the people who use the buildings.

Mr. Cooper: I understand that the hon. Member is afraid that we shall set up a factory on land and not acquire ownership of the land.

Mr. Kelly: No. The War Department may erect a building on land of which they have acquired the ownership and allow the building to fall out of their control into the hands of the people who are controlling manufacture in the buildings. I want to know whether the War Department will take precautions to see that the factories and land do not pass out of their possession and get into the possession of those who are controlling the manufacture.

Mr. Cooper: It has always been the policy of the War Office, as far as possible, to retain the ownership of a factory, even although it is put into the hands of other people to work it. Cases may have arisen at the end of the War in which factories, having very little value left because there was no particular work to be carried on in them, were acquired by those who were running them on extremely generous terms. It is, however, in general the policy of the War Office in circumstances such as the hon. Member described to retain ownership of such factories.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, to leave out "£582,600" and to insert£582,590."
I move such a small reduction because this Vote covers wages and a whole number of other charges which we should not like to vote against, particularly as the Vote is for the Royal Ordnance Factories, but it is only on this Vote


that we can raise certain points with which I wish to deal. The House will see that the Vote this year is down to the sum £582,600, though there are Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £15,481,000, and according to a footnote the total includes sums aggregating some £8,000,000 which, subject to statutory authority being obtained in accordance with the terms of the Defence Loans Bill, will be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. This Vote deals with many factories producing divers things and performing many functions, including the Royal Gun-carriage Factory, the Ammunition Factory, the Filling Factory, and the Engineering and Building Works Department at Woolwich, the Small Arms Factory at Enfield, the Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey, the Filling Factory at Hereford and the Cartridge Case Factory at Burton. The important point is that certain stores similar to these are supplied to the Services by private trading firms, and I would point out that the Royal Commission on the manufacture of arms treated the production of munitions for State purposes very seriously indeed, and suggested that one way of getting out of some of the difficulties which any country is in as the result of the private manuafcture of arms would be to develop Woolwich Arsenal and all its adjuncts.
I suggested during the Debate on the Estimates that it was very necessary that the House should get some grip on this expenditure. That was regarded as a mere propagandist statement, but as a matter of fact it was made in the business interests of the country. I do not intend to deal with them to-night, because I cannot do so, but it would have been more illuminating had we been considering warlike stores, to discuss some of the items which are presented to us, because such information as we have about all the warlike stores furnished by private production really conveys nothing to show what we are spending the money upon, except in the very general sense that the stores are for the purposes of war. When the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence is asked what grip we have upon this expenditure he tells us that there is a costings system, and one of the most appreciated points of the speech made by the Secretary of State for War was the statement that the War Office are privileged

to look into other people's books under the costings system. That is all very well; but the House has no guide as to particular items of expenditure. I think Woolwich produces the 18-pounder gun, and I should like to know how the Government ordnance factories are being affected by the rise in costs of production.
The House is not too critical of expenditure on munitions at the present time, but it does want to feel sure that it is not giving large sums to certain persons who may be unknown and that the money is really going in the production of more guns for the Forces. I should like to know the cost of producing an 18-pounder gun in the Government ordnance factories this year as compared with last year. I gave notice to the War Office to-day that I intended to raise these points, and perhaps it might have been wiser if I had given them more notice. I think Woolwich produces also some sections of transport, and I should like to know what the cost of production is now as compared with last year. I do not know whether they are producing only small arms and machine guns. I believe the War Office favour the Bren machine gun, which is foreign, and is one of the latest machine guns. I believe that the War Office are using it in preference to the old Lewis gun. What is the comparative cost of the Bren machine gun this year?
Those are some of the points which I wish to raise. There is a further point of how far the ordnance factories are used to check the other factories upon whom the country depends for private production. Sooner or later this House will face a storm, as a result of the rapidly increasing prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an answer to-day in which he explained the rapidly increasing prices of certain commodities which are material to the production of guns and of what is generally known as warlike stores. I do not think he was satisfied with that answer, which was very unconvincing. The prices of steel and other commodities necessary for the production of guns, transport and everything directly or indirectly required for Defence, are leaping up. The Government must be alarmed themselves, from the point of view of making the best use of their money.
Those increases will make fortunes rapidly for certain people; it is regrettable that some of the money is not going in wages to the workers. It would improve their position, if only temporarily. It would give a good deal of satisfaction if we knew that the extra money was being paid in wages and that the cost of production was going normally. I regret the need for this expenditure, but we would, in those circumstances, know that we were getting value for our money. Without any need for propaganda, there will be a storm in the country on this matter which will compel this House ultimately to take steps to get a thorough grip upon its own business. There is no indication from the Estimates that we are in a position to do that at the present time.
There are between 300 and 400 pages in these Estimates, but, under the present generalised system, it is impossible to be quite accurate and to put any particular sum down to any particular item, except in a generalised way. Even the most expert Member cannot find out, even a year afterwards, what the money has been spent on; it is almost impossible to get at it. I asked for the Army Accounts. I understand that the Paper was ready on Monday, but I do not know when we shall be able to get the accounts, and when we do get them they will be only for the year 1936 at the most. I know the difficulty, but I use that as an illustration to show how literally true it is that the House is working in the dark in these matters. There are critics of State management, but I do not think that many of them—except to the extent that one can criticise almost any business—would be critical of Woolwich and the Royal Ordnance Factories. I suspect that some of the most advanced knowledge and technique upon which many of the great war factories in the country are priding themselves, had their source in the Woolwich Research Department, which is entitled to considerable credit for some of its discoveries. It is a really marvellous place. The research work -is so thorough and useful that I believe some of the big armaments firms even paid a retaining fee for the benefit and the value of that work.
I am asking the Financial Secretary to the War Office to give us some particulars about relative costs. It is in the interest

of the House as well as of the War Office that he should do so. I agree with some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman said about the War Office, although not with all of them. I do not think I should be exaggerating if I said that when the War Office is handling these ordnance works it is extremely efficient. I should like the Financial Secretary to reply first of all to the question whether anything is being done, in this time of the nation's need, towards the recognition of the finding or suggestion of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Armaments, that the State works should be used on a much larger scale for the production of the various arms necessary for defence. Will he also give us comparative figures and more information, for which I have asked? I should also like the War Office to be efficient in a matter which has been taken up by the other Service Departments, in the reinstitution of a costings system. If there is a kind of plunder or semi-plunder going on, let them be as frank about it as will enable this House to make some show of getting a grip on this expenditure, as the House which is responsible to the people. The country should have such information, so that the disquietude and mental disturbance felt by most thoughtful people on these matters may be allayed in the sure knowledge that we are doing our business properly.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I should like for a moment to, follow the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in his reference to the Bren machine gun. His concern was chiefly that of cost—whether we are getting value for money; and I agree with him as to the importance of that question. He can depend upon any Scotsman, as well as people South of the Border, being anxious that Government money should not be wasted. My anxiety; however, is in regard to the delay that has taken place in manufacturing and issuing the Bren gun. I understand that it is fully 18 months since the Army Council approved of the Bren gun as the right gun to take the place of the Lewis gun, but now we are told that not until next atitumn will the gun be issued to units. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether this is the responsibility of the ordnance factories, whose Vote we are considering now, or whose responsibility it is, because it is a most regrettable thing. It means that soldiers who


have been trained during the last i8 months with Lewis guns, and who will be trained with Lewis guns during the next six months, with all the tedious mechanical problems that that training involves, will in fact be wasting their time; and not only will they be wasting their time, but they will know that they are wasting it. Further, the men who pass to the Reserve during these two years will have been trained only in the use of the old, obsolete Lewis gun, and they will be of no value if they are recalled to use the Bren gun, because they will never have seen it. I should like some assurance that in future, when new weapons are issued, whether they are manufactured, as I believe this new gun is in part, by the ordnance factories, or whether they are manufactured under sub-contract by private firms, this delay will not be repeated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member may be in a difficulty here. The first part of his question, so far as it relates to Government ordnance factories, is in order, but on this particular Resolution we cannot go into the question of the production of this gun by other firms, nor can we go into questions of general administration.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: May I, then, turn to my next point, which is the location of the factories? I see on page 4 of the Estimate that only one of the factories is located in Scotland, at Irvine, and that the number of people to be employed there in April of this year is only 40. That is out of a total of 20,000 employed in ordnance factories all over the country. I dare say that is not quite a true figure, because the Irvine factory has not yet been fully completed; but, even so, I see from page 5 that the cost of the Irvine factory is going to be only £600,000 odd, as compared with £2,500,000 in the case of Chorley, over £1,000,000 in the case of Bridgend, and over £1,300,000 in the case of Nottingham. I would ask the Government to consider whether a fairer share of the work could not be located in Scotland. I understand that factories are still to be started the sites of which have not yet been announced. I appreciate that there may be arguments against announcing the precise situation of all our munition factories, but I can assure my right

hon. Friend that, if he could give an indication that some of the new factories were going to be in Scotland, in order to bring us our fair share of this Government work, it would be very welcome news north of the Tweed.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I take it that, when the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was speaking of profiteering, he was referring to sub-contracts. Probably all Members of the House are against any form of profiteering in goods supplied to the Army if it can possibly be avoided, and it would have been very helpful if the hon. Member had been able to bring forward some specific instances of the plunder, or semi-plunder, which he alleges is taking place. It is impossible for the War Office or for this House to stop such practices unless these rather vague allegations are supported by specific facts.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Parkinson: With regard to the filling factory at Chorley, I notice that it is to cost about £6,000,000, and that during the present year £2,500,000 is to be spent upon it. I think it will be in order to refer to the munition factories, because not only is the Chorley factory in the Estimates, but I notice that there are some six more factories for which sites have not been definitely fixed, and I should like to draw attention to the fact that there are many parts of the country where the establishment of such factories would help the people very considerably, and where, in my opinion, quite eligible sites are to be found. The question of Chorley has been raised in this House on more than one occasion, and I think the Minister ought to give attention to other northern areas, as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray). We have a tremendous population in Lancashire, and we have tremendous areas which the factory at Chorley does not touch at all, so that they are suffering very considerably. I do not want to repeat any of the arguments that have been put forward in the House about the site at Chorley, except to say that, speaking as a civilian, I feel that it is not answering the best purpose to which it could have been put. I am sure it could have done much more work and provided much more employment.
I want to ask the Minister one or two questions with respect to the other sites. I see that there are to be two filling factories, three explosives factories, and one fuse factory. Have the sites been definitely located for these factories? If not, I would appeal to the Minister once more to consider those districts whose need is great, and where, I think, the allocation of sites would meet the needs of a greater number of people. Something in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000 is to be spent. That is a large sum of money which, spread about tin the areas where it is badly needed, would help, not only the Government and the country, but also the War Office. It would help in the work that they have directly before them. We have heard about appeals to join the Territorial Force. If you are going to need these men in the future, and have any inducement to offer, surely you ought to consider them now. You cannot go to them in the moment of necessity and say, "We want you to do this or that," after you have been neglecting them for many years. I would ask the Minister if, before they allocate the whole of these factories, they will give consideration to the part of the country between Bolton and Chorley, which ought to have something done for it. There are 15,000 unemployed in an area of six miles round Wigan. If the Minister wants to do something to help recruiting in that part of Lancashire, he will do better if he helps them in the time of their distress and poverty than if he waits till the time comes for them to give service to the nation.

9.7 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that very full consideration is given to the claims of various parts of the country, as far as possible, in selecting sites and we keep in touch with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour before any decisions are come to. As regards the factory at Chorley, that was a somewhat peculiar case. It required to be situated in a very special type of country. It was only after the most exhaustive inquiries and the visiting of many parts of the country that the site was finally selected. I do not think there can be any doubt that, taking everything into con-

sideration, Chorley is a long way the most suitable place for this large filling factory.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Baronet would have difficulty in justifying that statement if it were examined by independent minds.

Sir V. Warrender: Many minds were applied to the problem and the committee sat on it for a great length of time. It is hard to find a site suited to the needs of any factory, but I am satisfied that in this case the right choice was made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very conscious of the needs of the Special Areas and we do our best to help them. The other sites mentioned on page 5 have no names attached to them because we are still in the process of acquiring land, and we are not in a position yet to announce their location. My hon. Friend behind me need have no fear that the interests of Scotsmen will be neglected.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) for the complimentary remarks he made about the staff at Woolwich and the other Royal Ordnance Factories. He has had experience of the working of these factories. I think he was impressed as I was, with the great enthusiasm shown by the staff, and I am sure they will appreciate what he has said. His chief anxiety was as to whether we were getting value for money in the large amounts which will be spent in the purchase of guns, ammunition and warlike stores. He will see the value of these purchases on page 191 of the Estimates, so far as one can separate them between guns, ammunition and so on, but even then, of course, they are not brought down to any small items. If they were, the Estimates would have to be contained in a much larger volume.
The hon. Gentleman asked me if I could give him the cost of producing an 18-pounder, for instance, at Woolwich, what is the cost this year as compared with last year and what is the cost in the ordnance factories compared with the trade. So far as the trade is concerned, it is not the practice to disclose prices. There are obvious reasons which prevent us from doing so. Nor has it been the practice to disclose the cost of similar articles made in the Royal ordnance factories. This was set out in a memorandum which the War Office submitted to


the Royal Commission on Arms last year, and it was there pointed out that even if we could disclose these figures, they would be of very little assistance to the layman in arriving at any very definite conclusion. To compare the price of an article manufactured in an ordnance factory with the price charged in the trade really leads nowhere.
The advantages that the ordnance factories have over outside manufacturers, and the disadvantages which the outside manufacturer has vis-a-vis the ordnance factories are so wide and varied that you cannot enter into any comparison that is of any value whatever. May I enumerate one or two mentioned in the memorandum? In ordnance factories, for instance, no profit need be earned, no interest has to be paid on capital, no selling organisation is required, we have no bad debts and the prices do not include delivery at the depots. Let us turn to the disadvantages. There is practically no market for anything but warlike stores, and there is no market outside the British and the other Empire Governments. There can be no true comparison, and that was submitted to members of the Committee, to whom it was said that, although there were variations in individual cases, they were satisfied that the costs of the Royal ordnance factories and the trade were both reasonable. Let me come to the method of arriving at some estimate of whether we are getting value for money from the factories engaged in the outside trades.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been watching very carefully. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in his speech just kept in order, and I hope that the hon. Member the Financial Secretary will do so also and bear in mind that we cannot here go into details in regard to the production of private firms in competition with the Royal ordnance factories. The only question of that kind that we can go into is that of subcontracts by the Royal ordnance factories, or purchases of something in the nature of war material by the Royal ordnance factories.

Mr. Lawson: I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker for the reference to my remarks. I recognise all the time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that we are

moving on a very thin line as far as the Royal ordnance factories are concerned in their relation to other factories, but on page 3 of this Estimate in the second paragraph, it is made quite clear that certain goods similar to those made by the ordnance factories are also supplied to the Services by trade firms. Do I take it that your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, gives the hon. Gentleman the right to deal with the sub-contracts that are made with the other firms?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that this raises the very point. As far as the goods similar to those made by the Government factories are made by independent firms, we cannot go into the question of cost of those made by the independent firms and supplied in competition with the Royal ordnance factories. We can only consider goods made by private firms in so far as they are supplied by way of raw material for use in the Government factories.

Sir V. Warrender: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I apologise if I was going outside it. I was merely endeavouring to answer the point, as I understood it, of the hon. Member opposite, which was to ascertain whether the Government were not paying too high a price for the armaments which they were buying from outside firms and were not being manufactured in the Royal ordnance factories. I think that in view of your Ruling, however, it is almost impossible for me to reply to the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I make the matter clear? I followed the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) very carefully indeed, and I thought that he was careful, and perhaps rather clever, in confining himself to the goods which were manufactured for purposes of sale to the Royal ordnance factories. As far as that is the case, it is quite in order—I think that the broad distinction is between goods produced for the Royal ordnance factories and goods which are produced, as I described them, in competition with the Royal ordnance factories and so are outside this Vote.

Sir V. Warrender: As I cannot proceed with my argument across the Floor of the House, it is almost impossible for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. I come back to the remainder of my statement. It is not the practice to disclose the cost of the


manufacture of weapons, vehicles or tanks in the Royal ordnance factories. As far as the Bren guns are concerned, it would not be possible to do so, because the production of the Bren gun has only just started. My hon. Friend behind me complained about the delay. There has been some delay, and I am afraid that delays are very apt to occur when you are beginning the manufacture of an entirely new weapon. But I have reason to hope and believe that we can expect with reasonable certainty the issue of this gun in the course of this year.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has raised? I suggest to him that, if he would give us the information as to the control and prices of sub-contractors who are providing material, that would equally answer the point which we wish to have cleared up.

Mr. Lawson: Suppose Armstrongs are producing an r8-pounder gun which the War Office have ordered, is it not possible to tell us the price which they are paying as against the price at which Woolwich Arsenal is producing the same gun?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What I gathered the hon. Member was trying to get at would be quite in order. It would be in order to ask a question or discuss the question as to what was the cost to the Government factories of producing a particular gun. But then, of course, one knows that, having got that information, you could compare it with information as to the cost to a private firm if you could get that information: but that would have to be on some other occasion. That is about what it comes to.

Mr. Lawson: May I try to put the point more clearly? I take it that Woolwich produce the 18-pounder guns, but they cannot produce them quickly enough. Certain guns similar to those made by the Ordnance factories are also supplied to the Services by other firms. That is to say, Woolwich make contracts, say, with Armstrongs or whatever firm it is, to produce i8-pounder guns. If this comes upon the Ordnance Vote, will it be possible to get these figures?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not gather such is the case. I understand that guns which the Royal ordnance factories cannot make are supplied to the War Office,

but not to the Royal ordnance factories. If that be so, they are outside this particular Resolution. That is the whole point.

Sir V. Warrender: I would like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I did take the trouble to make a comparison, but I am afraid that by the Ruling of the Chair I am debarred from going further. Perhaps I may say that we are investigating these matters, and that the system does work satisfactorily. I do not think that there were any other points raised in the discussion, but I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman opposite that, if we cannot discuss these matters across the Floor of the House, he will come and have a discussion with me afterwards.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give particulars of sub-contracts of the Department, which would be in order?

Sir V. Warrender: The method upon which we are working is that in the case of non-competitive contracts, through the machinery of our cost accounting office, we investigate the books of the contracting firms, and, having experience ourselves of the manufacture of these articles, our officers are able to know accurately what they should cost. If it is discovered that costs are unduly high we protest, and if a dispute arises it is left to my right hon. Friend to decide what is a fair margin of profit for the contractor on that particular order. Otherwise the system we work on is not, as is so often imagined, a cost plus profit basis, but a system in which the contractor quotes a maximum price. He completes his order, and if it is then found that the cost of the work has exceeded the maximum he has quoted, he has to face the loss; if it is found to be less, we still have the right to examine the books and ascertain from costing his work whether we are being charged a correct price or not. Those are two of the systems under which we work.
The knowledge we have ourselves of the cost of these articles is of the greatest value to us. In addition, we have the safeguard of contracts on a competitive basis. We can ascertain whether the prices quoted are unduly high, and in that case they are immediately investigated. The date on which these accounts have to be laid is set out by Act of Parliament. It is true that the 1935 account


of the Army has only just come to hand, but by law it was only due to be in the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on 31st December, and in the hands of the Treasury on 31st January, and in this House on 15th March. To that date we have adhered. The accounts of the Army Ordnance Factories are not due here until 31st March. They are complicated accounts, and are not closed for a considerable time after the end of the period that they cover.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any information about the Bridgend factory, for which I see there is in the Estimate a sum of £1,150,000? Is that to be spent during the current year, and if so, is all the money required for the contemplated site? May I ask also whether the site has been taken, what was the price paid for the land, what number of persons is likely to be employed from labour exchanges in the vicinity, and how many persons are likely to be transferred?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would point out that the Minister cannot reply again except by leave of the House.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I would like to know whether the Department is going outside the country to purchase machinery and machine-tools while there are firms in this country anxious to perform the work, and able to produce machine-tools equal to or perhaps better than some of those that may be brought in from Germany and the United States. I would like to be assured that such a thing is not taking place under the War Department. There are few, if any, machine-tool makers better than those to be found in this country, and it is an amazing thing to find the Government at this time, when it is talking so much about employing people in this country, going to manufacturers in other countries while our people are looking for work. Some of this work has been put into the hands of large firms who are not doing the whole of it themselves but are passing part of it on to other people as sub-contractors, and I find that some of these sub-contractors are outside this country.
With regard to the projected factories at Nottingham and Hereford, we see an estimated expenditure at Nottingham of £1,374,000, and an estimate of the number

of people to be employed there in April this year of 300. Are we to take it that that expenditure is for the employment of only 30o people? A question in regard to Irvine was not answered and I would like to know, if the Department has made up its mind, what number of people is to be employed there. With regard to the other site the explanation was unsatisfactory. We are told that the reason the location is not mentioned is for fear that some other people might purchase the land in order to make the Government pay more for it. How has this estimate been arrived at for each of these projected sites? I find in one or two parts of the Estimates reference to payments to the Metropolitan Police connected with superannuation allowances; £30,000 in the main Estimate, and £19,500 here. Are these separate amounts paid by various departments of the War Office? If not, why are they put separately? I hope that the question of wages at Woolwich, as well as the other matters which have been mentioned, is going to be dealt with satisfactorily, and that we shall have no difficulties so far as working conditions are concerned.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Cooper: I cannot at this moment give the hon. Member all the details with regard to the factory at Bridgend, but I can assure him that the work will go forward rapidly. I believe that all the land has been purchased, but I will find out and let him have the number of people who will probably be employed. This is only an estimate of the number of people who will be employed in April of this year. As the hon. Member is aware, most of these factories are not yet completed; some are still being developed. The factory at Nottingham has only just come into production. It was taken over only late in the autumn, and the numbers who will be working there in the future will be very much greater. The exact figures I cannot give. With regard to the acquisition of factories generally, we keep in touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health in order to see that as far as possible they are put up in areas where employment is most needed. We shall continue to follow that policy.
With regard to the purchase of machine-tools, it is true that we have been obliged to purchase a certain percentage of machine-tools abroad owing to the


urgency of the great scheme of rearmament which the Government have undertaken. We are endeavouring to do a great deal in a short time and where machine-tools have been purchased abroad it is because they would not be available in this country in time. These purchases are now coming to an end, and, although I would not like to give the hon. Member a definite assurance, there is the probability that there will be no such purchases in the future because more machine-tools will be available in this

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[9.38 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Acland-Troyta, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Patrick, C. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'shro, W.)
Peake, O.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grimston, R. V.
Penny, Sir G.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Petherick, M.


Apsley, Lord
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Assheton, R.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Atholl, Duehets of
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Slanlay
Hannon, Sir p. J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Harbord, A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Copt. H. H. (Isle of Thanst)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blair, Sir R.
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Blaker, Sir R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boulton, W. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bowaler, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hunter, T.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rowlands, G.


Brooklebank, C. E. R.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwan)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bull, B. B.
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavartree)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cary, R. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.



Channon, H.
Latham, Sir P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Clarke, Lt.-Col R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Somerset, T.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Leskie, J. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spans. W. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S, G'gs)
Lees-Jones, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, J. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ress)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dawson, Sir P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


De Chair, S. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Wakefield, W. W.


Donman, Hon. R. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Meller, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir V.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchason, Sir G. G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emery, J. F.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Womsrsley, Sir W. J.


Everard, W. L.
Munro, P.
Wragg, H.


Furness, S. N.
Nall, Sir J.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.



Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Granville, E. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Commander Southby and Captain




Hope.




NOES.


Adams, D, (Consett)
Ammon, C. G.
Benson, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bevan, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Barr, J.
Brooke, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Batey, J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)

country. With regard to the last point, the superannuation allowances for the police who have been employed for the protection of our factories, we have now our own constabulary and, therefore, we shall no longer have to employ Home Office police.

Question put, "That '£582,600' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 17o; Noes, 92.

Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Cassells, T.
Lathan, G.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Silkin, L.


Cocks, F. S.
Lea, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lunn, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Leaf- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
MeEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MeGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Strains, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Milner, Major J.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Gallacher, W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Walkden, A. G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Watkins, F. C.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.



Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.
Westwood, J.


Hall, J. H. (Whilechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hardie, G. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hayday, A.
Potts, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.



John, W.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SPANISH FRONTIERS OBSERVATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Provision as to observing officers.)

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert:
but it shall be a good defence for the master to prove that in such contravention or failure he was acting under the orders of the owner of the ship.
If the Committee will look at Subsection (4) of the Clause, they will see that it refers to the penalties to which the master and the owner of a ship are subjected if the ship infringes the provisions with regard to the carrying of observers under Clause 1. The Amendment which I am moving has the following object: It is possible that a master may, under the orders of the owner or the charterer, infringe the provisions of Clause r and consequently be guilty of a misdemeanour which may render him liable to a penalty of two years' imprisonment, or a fine under the existing Merchant Shipping Act. I think that might be rather hard, since it would be very awkward for the master if he

were ordered by his owner to take a certain course of action which would render him liable to the penalty of the law. I hope my hon. and learned Friend who will reply will tell me whether or not, under the existing Merchant Shipping Act, a master acting in that way would be subject to penalties.

9.50 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment, which would indeed introduce a novelty into our legal system. Under this Bill we are creating an offence, and it would be extremely novel to say that a person would have a good defence for having committed a crime if it were shown that he was acting under the orders of someone else. The question of whether or not the master would be prosecuted is one thing, but it is impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment which would permit the master to set up a good defence by saying that he had committed the offence under the orders of somebody else. My hon. Friend asked me a question about the Merchant Shipping Act. In that Act various matters are made misdemeanours, and it would certainly not be a defence for the master to say that he had committed the misdemeanours under the directions of the owners. The answer is that one must not commit the crimes even if one is told to do so by somebody else.

Mr. Petherick: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Clause 1 of this Bill is really the crux of the whole system which it is proposed to introduce. It institutes the framework of control. I would like to say a few words in reply to the explanations given last night by the President of the Board of Trade as to how the control will work in practice. What it means in practice will depend upon the measures to be evolved and the spirit in which those measures are worked. In that connection, His Majesty's Government have a very special responsibility. They are in many senses, because they are ruling this country, the leaders of Europe. Our position at Gibraltar and the overwhelming supremacy in European waters of the British Fleet, a supremacy which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out a little while ago has never been greater than at the present time, give them special authority. It is in their power, we think, to set the tone of the whole system and by their example and inspiration to control the working of the whole system from the Non-Intervention Committee right down to the last observing officer.
I think the Committee understands the actual measures which the system of control involves. We are not quite as hopeful as the Government are that the system will prove efficacious in the present situation. We do not say that because we lack good will. We want this system to work. We wish with all our hearts that it would work. What there is of the system, if I may put it in that way, is ingenious, and in some of its parts, although there are exceptions, we think it right and likely to be effective; but there are very serious gaps to which we drew attention yesterday and as to which we did not get very much satisfaction. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade held out hopes of amendment, and I thank him for what he said in that regard; but on the specific points that we raised and the proposals that we made in Amendments for closing the gaps almost nothing was said from the Government benches.
In connection with Clause 1, I want very briefly to raise two of those points again, because unless something is done

with regard to them we are afraid that in practice the whole control will he a farce. These proposals are made in a constructive spirit. The first is in connection with the publicity to be given to the reports of the observing officers. It was said last night that the Bill went a very long way to lay bare the facts as they may be ascertained. That is precisely what we want, but the facts will not be laid bare if they are dealt with by the normal methods of diplomacy, and kept within the secret debates of the Non-Intervention Committee. We urge upon the Government that the weapon of publicity is incomparably the best weapon in their armour for making this system work. I know the argument that is used, that when you get a report from a British diplomatic or consular agent abroad, you cannot publish it because if it reflects on the country to which he is accredited his position is impossible afterwards. That argument does not apply in this case, because the observing officers, even the British agents who are employed, are not agents of the British Government. They are agents of an international authority and as such we think that it is both simple as well as highly desirable that their reports should be published.
The second point, to which I think nearly every speech from this side of the House drew attention, is the transfer of flag by the sale of ships to either of the contending parties in Spain after the 8th March, when the scheme was supposed to come into effect. In our view, and I think it was proved in the discussion yesterday, if there were large scale transfers of ships to either parties this scheme will be made a farce. We had two answers from the Government but, unfortunately, they were not in close accord. The Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said that it was an important and material point and that he hoped some arrangement could be made to meet it. We were grateful for that assurance, but one and a-half hours later the President of the Board of Trade said that there was no reason why there should not be purchases and sales of ships, and that we could not prevent them. I think that covers the case which we had in mind. It covers the case by a blank rejection. There seems to be an obscurity and difference of opinion between the two Ministers. If I have misunderstood the position, I am very glad.


I hope that we shall be assured that something will be done in the Non-Intervention Committee by means of an amendment of the existing scheme at the earliest possible date, to right this serious gap.
Next, I want to mention the spirit in which the Government approach this matter of control. No system, whatever it be, can be made to work unless the most powerful nations who are trying to work it are determined to give it a fair trial, and to that end are determined ruthlessly to discover and publish the truth, whatever it may be, and to insist that the nations which have signed the agreement shall really fulfil it and carry it out. I am bound to say, however, that when I consider the new system in the light of the speech made by the Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, yesterday, my mind is full of misgiving. I will give two examples from what he said. He said that, owing to the non-intervention agreement, only a trickle of arms had reached Spain since last July.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be making either a Second Reading or a Third Reading speech; certainly one very far outside the ambit of this Clause.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will draw my remarks to a rapid conclusion if I am out of order. I was trying to argue that this system of control cannot be made to work unless the Government bring to bear a spirit quite different from that which they have shown in the past. Perhaps I had better argue that on the Third Reading. Therefore, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion with an expression of the hope that the Government will give us a promise with regard to the two specific points I have raised, namely, the publicity of the reports of the observing officers and the transfer of ships to the parties in the civil war.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I will say only a few words on this Clause. Like the preceding speaker, I recognise that this Clause contains the crux of the Bill. My colleagues on these benches, who represent the Independent Labour party, take the view which I expressed on the Second Reading and consequently, although this Clause does contain the crux of the Bill, we feel that the Bill will not carry out what is

ostensibly its purpose, Therefore, we do not intend to try to amend the Clause. We have no faith in the policy of the Government or in the good faith of the Government in this matter.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: I should like to raise one or two questions on the bearing of certain parts of this Clause. The first is in regard to Sub-section (1, c), which lays it down that if the administrator at the prescribed place finds that he has not at his disposal a sufficient number of observers he may give the ship permission to sail without any observer on board. Will the ship in question have to go to the prescribed place first, or can the administrator signal by wireless to the ship to say that it need not go there? If the administrator has power to signal by wireless to prevent the ship going in, in those circumstances, will the administrator satisfy himself personally that the ship does not carry any cargo of munitions, arms or men before he gives permission for the ship to go on to a Spanish port?
I understand from the White Paper that the number of observers is to be 550, who are to be distributed among certain ports. There are seven principal ports and a number of other ports. On an average making full allowance for the minor ports, there should be 50 or 60 observers for each of the principal ports. Suppose it happened that at Palermo, for example, the administrator suddenly found that there were only five men at his disposal to act as observers. Suppose that fact became known to the Italian administrators? What is there to prevent the Italian Government sending from Brindisi five ships, without any arms or men on board, simply to take up the available observers, so that there would be none left? After having accomplished that, they could send a whole fleet of transports from Brindisi, saying: "There are no observers here" and, without permission of the administrator, go to the Spanish port with men and munitions on board.
I suggest, therefore, first, that all ships should go to the prescribed place, secondly, that the administrator should personally satisfy himself that the ship is not carrying illegal cargo and, thirdly, that the administrator should have power to say: "We have no observers here, therefore these ships must go to Marseilles or Gibraltar before going to


Malaga. They must take up an observer at one of those two places before going to Malaga." Alternatively, he might be given power in a situation like that to recruit extra observers for the time being from the non-Italian population of Palermo. What exactly is the effect of Sub-section (5, a)? Does it mean that in certain cases the owner of a ship can have a special observer of his own by paying a certain sum of money and that, having got the observer on board the ship will be able to go to Spain without entering any of the prescribed ports.

10.6 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: This is one of the main Clauses of the Bill. So far as I can see, it is merely a piece of paper camouflage in order again to try and persuade the Committee that non-intervention, which has been proved to be a farce, is going to be made a reality. Its efficacy obviously depends on the reciprocal measures enforced in other countries. Anyone who has had experience of what those other countries have been doing must realise that the likelihood of enforcing any such measures is practically negligible. There are, however, certain explanations as regards the operation of this Clause which I should like to get from the Minister. I understand that the number of observing officers to be placed on a vessel is two or more, except in the case of small vessels or vessels in ballast, on which the number may be one. Is only one of the two observing officers to be in charge or are they to have equal parts? Are they independently to exert all the powers laid down in the Clause? Can they each cross-examine the master and the passengers in turn and do they have to agree on a report, if a report is to be made, or have they to submit separate reports as to what has happened?
The effectiveness of this Clause will depend on the sanction that lies behind its operation. The sanction might appear to be that which is in Sub-section (4); that is to say, if a ship to which this Bill applies contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions as regards taking up and putting down observers, the master of the ship will be guilty of a misdemeanour and the owner also guilty of a misdemeanour. That is only dealing with the failure to take up or put down observers. A far more important matter is failure to allow an observer when he

gets on board to observe. That matter is dealt with in Sub-section (6) at the end. The only penalty for that is a fine which shall not exceed £100. If any one is sending a cargo of munitions or men to Spain, such a penalty is absolutely negligible compared with the value of the cargo and the importance of getting the men and munitions there. But a master can lock an observer in his cabin throughout a voyage and prevent his looking at any documents and the greatest fine that could be exacted in this country would be £100. One can assume that the person who ordered the ship to go to Spain would be willing to pay the £100.
Therefore, in this Bill the only sanction imposed is one so small and slight compared with the issues involved in the shipping of cargoes of munitions to Spain by such countries as Italy and Germany, that it makes the whole enforcement of the law under this Clause something which is not of the slightest value. When one comes to see what penalties other countries lay down, instead of £100 one may find 20 marks or 50 lira, and the penalties for the obstruction of the officers and preventing them from observing anything will even on paper appear to be completely farcical.
I should like to ask whether the carrying of these particular flags, mentioned in paragraph 7, is going to give a ship any protection in Spanish waters. Consider the possibility of a British ship going to Barcelona. Such a ship, as I understand it, under paragraph 7 would, when approaching waters adjacent to Spanish territory, have to display the prescribed signal. It would have to give itself away, and say it was such and such a ship. The navy guarding that part of the shore could easily identify it and, if necessary, stop it under the second Clause. Is there any object other than to make the ship easily identifiable to the naval Powers that are watching under Clause 2? Is there any other object in making the ships carry these prescribed signals? Will it give any protection to have an observer on board and carry prescribed signals? Will it help against General Franco's cruisers or against Italian cruisers sinking ships in that particular part of the sea?

10.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): The Com-


mittee will understand that the scheme of observation and control which this Bill is designed to implement must necessarily be brought into operation by a series of stages. I would commend to the attention of the Committee paragraphs 44 to 48 of the White Paper all of which will be found on page 18. Such questions as the number of observers required, the ports at which they will be distributed and the method of moving round from time to time must, in order that the scheme should be practicable, be subject to experience gained in the early stages. The Committee will see from paragraph 49 that the total number of officers is 685. The figures are exclusive of chief administrators, administrators, deputy-administrators and their personal and administrative staffs.
I want the Committee to understand that we are passing a piece of legislation which is machinery, and that the machinery will only come into force subject to certain conditions which we will discuss when we come to the appropriate Clause. The Government appreciate the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on this Clause. They appreciate his observation that the Opposition desire that this scheme should work, and approve of those parts of it which are in their view likely to be effective. We have a common object in mind. We desire that this scheme should be effective. We consider it a considerable achievement that representatives of 27 nations assembled here in London should be able to cover so much ground and subscribe to so much detail as is contained in the White Paper. If experience shows that there are points which have not been taken into consideration, certainly it will be the object of the Government, as no doubt of the Governments of the other maritime Powers, to see that the necessary amendments are made in the scheme.
The hon. Member for Derby raised two substantial points. One is the question of publicity, and the other the question of the transfer of vessels registered under one national flag to another national flag. With regard to the first, the attitude of the Government is that as much publicity should be given to these reports as the nations themselves agree to give. We are prepared, as a Government, to go as far as the general consensus of opinion of the

Non-Intervention Committee may permit one to go, with regard to publicity. We appreciate the value of the weapon of publicity but we cannot, for the moment, go further than the international agreement. It is not possible to take unilateral action under an international agreement. It may be said that in view of the case which has been made out, one nation ought to put forward the point in the Non-Intervention Committee. That is a matter of argument and opinion, but it is not possible in the passage of legislation through the House of Commons, to give undertakings to go further than the other parties to the agreement, are prepared to go. What I say to the Committee now is that we join with the Opposition in desiring that publicity should be given to these reports. We welcome the suggestion and will go as far as the other nations will permit, and that, I think, is an assurance which the Committee would desire to have.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We appreciate that this is an international service working on the orders of an international committee and that Great Britain alone cannot require publicity to be given to the reports. What we would like to hear from the Government is that they intend at the very next meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee to propose automatic and immediate publicity for all observers' reports, that they will urge it with all their power, and will make it known publicly that they have done so in order that those who oppose it may take their responsibility.

Dr. Burgin: I understand what the hon. Member is asking. Whether precision of that kind is the best method of attaining the object which everybody has in view I beg leave to doubt, but it is the Government's desire that the value of publicity in regard to these reports should be secured to the maximum measure possible. As far as I know, that statement by a Government spokesman at this Box, carries with it implicitly the intention of raising this matter at the appropriate time in the Non-Intervention Committee. I do not think it is reasonable to ask that it should be done on a particular day at a particular hour, at a particular meeting. I do not think that is the way in which international agreement is procured. But that is merely a detail. Surely the Committee will be satisfied by the welcome


which has been given by the Government spokesman to the very proper remarks made from the Opposition that value should be attached to the publicity of the contents of a report. I think on that matter we see eye to eye, that the weapon of publicity ought to be used.
With regard to the transfer of vessels from one flag to another, that difficulty is realised, and there is no inconsistency between the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on that point. Both spokesmen recognise that this is a possible loophole, and the way to deal with a loophole in the administration of a practical scheme is to consider with your experts what is the effective method of blocking that particular gap. It is not a simple matter to provide that the laws of a great many countries shall be so amended that there shall not be a freedom to change the national flag of a ship by a transfer from one register to another. That is not a simple matter. It cannot be done unilaterally or by the legislation of any one country. It can only be done by international agreement. The Committee is entitled to the assurance, which was given in the Second Reading Debate, that this point is known to His Majesty's Government. Steps are being taken to consider what is the effective and practical method of solving it, and I give the Committee an unhesitating assurance that that matter is receiving detailed consideration. I cannot go further than that. I cannot say that agreement will be secured from the 27 countries as to what is to be done. I can only express the hope that a solution will be found, and to that extent I welcome the discussion which has taken place this evening. I welcome the attention which has been called to the point because if a gap in a scheme of this kind, which is intended by 27 countries to be an effective scheme, is called to the attention of the Non-Intervention Committee, it is far more likely that a sensible solution will be found than if attention had not been called to it.
The hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) raised a question of paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause. I endeavoured on the Second Reading to explain the necessity for that paragraph being included in the Bill. It all flows from the experimental character of this

scheme and from the necessity of being called upon to bring it into operation as soon as other maritime countries have seen their way to adopt it. It may well be that there will not, at the moment of its coming into operation, be precisely the number of observation officers we would wish at each of the prescribed ports. In these circumstances, the chief administrators may give instructions to administrators at any particular ports that they should notify shipping that the number of observation officers is not available. It is not in contemplation that the vessel itself should put into a port where observation officers are not to be found. The Board of Trade, guarding the interests of legitimate traders, the merchants, charterers, shipowners and seamen engaged in lawful voyages, carrying lawful cargoes, have a duty to see that we do not impose undue restrictions and obligations on those passing by sea in the lawful course of their business. So where an administrator sends by wireless, or other approved method, to a vessel—it may be before she sails—that there is no point in her calling at a particular port, because if she does there will not be observation officers there to embark upon her, he may exempt that vessel on that particular voyage from the obligation of calling at that port. That does not necessarily mean that the vessel is completely franked from complying with the whole of this Clause. It means that she is absolved from the particular obligation to call at that particular port. That is all it means, and that surely is a practical arrangement.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely what it says is that it shall exempt the ship from the provisions of that Sub-section while on a voyage on which she is thus engaged, and that means that she need not call anywhere.

Dr. Burgin: I do not think it is going to mean that in practice.

Sir S. Griggs: But that is what the Act will say.

Dr. Burgin: I think my view is right: that what will happen is that she will not be obliged to put into that prescribed port. I was asked about the duties of observation officers. I should imagine they will all have equal powers and have independent rights and that the position is as the hon. Member for Broxtowe fore-


shadowed, but in point of fact their duties will be assigned to them by the chief administrator. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked whether there was any object in a vessel being obliged to display flags otherwise than to enable the naval vessels to determine the more easily that she had complied with the provisions of this legislation. I think the object is a little wider than that though it would show to all and sundry that she has complied. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in his interpretation of the Sub-section as to penalties. I do not in any way dissent from his reading of the Clause, but I do dissent from the suggestion that the penalty of £100 is so derisory that owners or masters of British vessels are going to stand convicted in a public court of a misdemeanour for offending against a law which is to implement—[Interruption.] Well, I do not know how the hon. and learned Member would describe it. We can call it a statutory offence if he prefers that; but I cannot believe that when the United Kingdom is a party to an international agreement implementing a policy of non-intervention the owners and masters of British vessels will lightly subject themselves to penalties recoverable in a police court for committing offences against the provisions of that law, and although the penalty is £100, the shame of condemnation would be as great as in the case of a higher penalty.

10.28 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman has not got the point. This is a Bill which is intended to be similar to enactments introduced in other countries. This being the first of those enactments, other countries can measure their obligations under the international agreement by what we say in this Bill. Does any hon.

Member imagine, in the case of an Italian ship, that the terror of being fined the equivalent of £100 in a police court or whatever it is called in Rome, will deter the master of that ship from taking a load of munitions to Spain if Mussolini tells him that he ought to do it? It is perfectly farcical. Compared with the urgency of the matter and the value of the cargo, a fine of £100, or its equivalent in the currency of another country, would have no deterrent effect at all if the Government of that country favoured sending the ship with munitions to Spain.

As regards the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), the Parliamentary Secretary said that paragraph (c) did not mean that the ship would be exempted from observation during that journey, but I would suggest that he made a mistake in so informing the Committee. The proviso says that if there is not a sufficient number of observing officers available for embarkation, the ship shall he exempt
from the provisions of this Sub-section,
while on the voyage on which she is engaged. This Sub-section is the only part of the Measure that makes it necessary for a ship to carry an observing officer, and a ship which is exempt from this Sub-section has no liability put upon it by any part of the Measure to take up an observing officer at any time. Therefore, once the ship was exempted, it would be impossible for the administrator to say: "You must call at another port instead." Once there is a failure at the port at which the ship calls to have an observing officer present, the ship becomes automatically franked for that voyage.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 32.

Donner, P. W.
Leckie, J. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Duggan, H, J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ropnor, Colonel L.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.
Rowlands, G.


Emery, J. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
MoCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Salt, E. W.


Everard, W. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Simmonds, O. E.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Somerset, T.


Granville, E. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Southby, Commander A. R J.


Gridlay, Sir A. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spens, W. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Tate, Mavis C.


Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hannah, I. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Munro, P.
Tinker, J. J.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nail, Sir J.
Turned, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Turton, R. H.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Holmes, J. S.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, C. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Peake, O.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hulbert, N. J.
Penny, Sir G.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Petherick, M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hunter, T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Keeling, E. H.
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wragg, H.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rankin, Sir R.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Kimball, L.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)



Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rayner, Major R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Latham, Sir P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

and Captain Hope.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dunn, E. (Rothar Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Batey, J.
Gallachor, W.
Ritson, J.


Brooke, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hardie, G. D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Stephen, C.


Cassells, T.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.



Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Maclean, N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maxton, J.
Mr. Cocks and Mr. Bevan.


Dobbie, W.
Milner, Major J.

CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Naval Officers of certain countries.)

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Cooks: I do not know whether this is the first time in our history that we are proposing to pass legislation to enable a foreign warship to stop an English vessel on the high seas. I want to know for how long it can make it stop. Although it is not actually in the Bill, we have to remember that similar legislation to this is to be passed by other countries which will enable ships which are not ours to be stopped by foreign war-

ships. I should like to point out how dangerous this will be. A ship may be steaming towards the coast of Catalonia, for example, trying to evade a rebel ship which is seeking to interfere with her, and she is stopped by a warship and deliberately delayed until a rebel ship comes up. It might be an Italian warship, which would communicate by wireless with a rebel ship over the horizon and delay the trader, which might be captured and perhaps sunk when the rebel ship came up. Is there any guarantee given to ships which obey this order that they shall not be put in the position of being captured or sunk? If a British ship.


fails to comply with the requirement to stop, what can be done? Is the warship allowed to fire across her bows and, if she takes no notice, fire at her? What would happen in the case of a British ship fired at in that way by an Italian or German warship?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), and also to urge again upon the Government the point which I raised yesterday and to which again no answer has been made, namely, whether it is not still possible to ask that the Non-Intervention Committee should make an arrangement that these ships on patrol duty shall carry neutral naval officers as observers. It is open to the very grave objection that fleets which are belligerents, German and Italian, should be patrolling the coasts of the party against whom they are fighting on the field and in the air, and some guarantee should be given that this system should not be used to extend and increase the opportunities of these belligerent fleets to carry out their disloyal, covenant-breaking operations. We hope some measures will be proposed as quickly as possible for neutral observers, Dutch or Swedish officers, to be on board every one of these vessels. There is another point which I hope will be in order. It is concerned with the vessel "Spring-wear" to which reference was made last night. The President of the Board of Trade could not tell us last night whether this vessel will be allowed to carry its cargo of wheat to Alicante, to which it is bound, and have protection.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not in order on this Clause.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This deals with the powers and duties of Naval officers, but if I am not in order, I shall have to find some other opportunity of raising it. It was mentioned yesterday, and I thought that it could be mentioned now.

10.47 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: What is the position as regards the territorial waters of the Spanish Government? They, of course, come within the 10 miles, which is the limit within which these patrols will largely operate. This Clause purports

to give powers for a foreign warship within those territorial waters to stop, for instance, a British vessel. I should have thought that that was a very grave breach of international law unless the consent of the Spanish Government was first obtained for that invasion of their waters by hostile craft. I am particularly thinking of the Eastern coast of Spain. This Clause authorises the German and Italian officers to board British vessels in those circumstances, and it is giving an implied authority to those German and Italian war vessels to come within the Spanish territorial waters in order that they may carry out these functions which are to be performed on the Eastern coast of Spain. I can appreciate that, in view of what has happened or what, anyway, is rumoured to have happened, on the Eastern coast of Spain, the Spanish Government may have the very strongest objection to these war vessels being impliedly authorised by the passage of this Act to investigate the circumstances on board a British vessel in those waters.
I should like to know from the learned Attorney-General what communication has passed with regard to the permission of the Spanish Government to operate this scheme within all these waters? I should like to emphasise what these two hon. Gentlemen have said, that the Clause authorises an Italian warship to hold up or stop a British vessel proceeding into Spanish waters, apparently more or less indefinitely. It can stop a vessel, and then, by making various requirements and negotiations and inspections, enable the observing officer to hold a vessel up for a considerable period of time, during which that vessel may be exposed to a very serious danger from hostile craft either coming from the Spanish Government or from the Spanish rebel forces.
What is to happen in that event, if in these circumstances such a vessel is sunk? Suppose that while a ship is being held up a torpedo is fired or a bomb dropped from a hostile craft or aeroplane, is the International Commission to take the responsibility for the lives of the seamen on board, and is some compensation to be provided out of the International Fund for the seamen or their dependants? In view of what has been happening with regard to certain vessels which have been in Spanish territorial waters, there is a


great risk that anything interfering with the speedy passage of a vessel through those waters may very much increase the dangers to which those vessels are exposed. What steps, if any, have been taken to discuss that problem, and what decision, if any, has been reached?

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Suppose a ship is carrying a cargo of food or grain to Spain, and receives a wireless message that it is no use her calling at a particular administrative port because there is no observer there, but she can go on her journey to a Spanish port. If such a ship is stopped by German or Italian warships, will they have power to examine that ship, to take it into port and examine its cargo? How can they tell whether there are munitions on board if there is no observer? If they board the ship and want to examine the cargo, and there is no observer there, they will take the ship to some other port and the cargo will never get to Spain.

10.53 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: A number of questions have been raised on this Clause, and it is necessary to preface such observations as I want to make by pointing out that this is a system of international naval control, that we have given our signature to an international agreement dated 8th March, 1937, which provides for the establishment of a system of naval observation of the coasts of Spain. I will refer hon. Members, and particularly the last hon. Member, who obviously has not read it, to the provisions of the White Paper which set out exactly what this system of naval control is intended to do. They are contained in paragraph 33 onwards, and particularly paragraph 37. There is the system of naval observation, four Powers to do it—the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy—the establishment of zones, the allocation of the zones to different Navies, the establishment of a special regime in the territorial waters of countries adjacent to Spain, the duties of the countries undertaking this naval observation, the method that that observation is to adopt, and the distance from the coast at which this naval observation is to be conducted. There follows the use of special flags, and the establishment of certain areas through which merchant vessels shall pass in order that the control shall be effective.

We then come to paragraph 37 of the scheme, which contains what the naval officers of these four maritime Powers are to do.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. Is the White Paper included as any part of the Bill? If not, can the Committee accept the terms of the Bill on the basis of a White Paper which is not included in the Bill? Are we not discussing the Bill and not the White Paper?

The Deputy-Chairman: Obviously the White Paper is not part of the Bill, but it is a fairly common practice to issue a White Paper in explanation of a Bill.

Mr. Bevan: This is not an explanation. What we are having from the Parliamentary Secretary at the moment is an interpretation of what is meant by the Bill. Surely what is meant by the Bill is what the Bill contains, and I respectfully submit that it is not competent for the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Committee to accept any part of a White Paper which is, in fact, not included in the terms of the Bill.

Dr. Burgin: May I point out that the Bill is to implement the observation agreement; that the observation agreement is the White Paper; and that the White Paper is referred to in the preamble of the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: The observation agreement has not been included as part of the Bill and, therefore, I submit that it is not competent for the Parliamentary Secretary to set out the terms of the White Paper as indicating the intentions of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing out of order in the Parliamentary Secretary quoting from the White Paper as to what may be the intentions of the Clause. Whether the Committee accepts his contention is another matter.

Dr. Burgin: The whole Bill is to implement the observation agreement referred to at length in the Preamble of the Bill, and I am at the moment calling the attention of the Committee to the undertaking which the United Kingdom Government has entered into with regard to conferring powers on the officers of ships of war of certain navies. Those are obligations which have been accepted by the executive Government.

Mr. Bevan: In what part of the Bill are they? I most respectfully submit that the Committee is being put in a very difficult position. What undertakings have been entered into by His Majesty's Government with any other Governments which are not contained in the Bill? I submit that it is not competent for His Majesty's Government to enter into any undertakings with any other Governments except those which are, in fact, being implemented by the Bill itself. I submit that if the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to quote from the Bill in order to justify his contentions, it is not competent for him to use the White Paper as the instrument.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see that the hon. Member has any point of Order.

Dr. Burgin: The Government of the United Kingdom signed the Observation Agreement of 8th March, 1937, and by signing that agreement undertook on behalf of the United Kingdom to confer certain powers upon the Governments of other countries. Clause 37 of the Observation Agreement sets out what powers are conferred upon the Governments of 27 countries who were signatories to the Observation Agreement. The Governments which are parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement expressly undertake that they will confer upon the officers in command of the naval vessels engaged in naval observation certain rights, and those rights are to verify the identity of the ship, to order the ship to stop, to board the ship, to examine the certificate of registry and the clearance documents, to ascertain whether there are observation officers on board, whether the ship has called at an observation port, whether she has taken on board observation officers or has been furnished with an exemption, and, if and when a special plan has been agreed with regard to focal areas, to require ships to pass through those areas. No right of search is given to the naval vessels engaged in this system of naval control. If a ship fails to comply when the officer in charge of a naval vessel requires certain things to be done, the officer of that naval vessel reports back, preumably to his own Government in the first place, and then to the Non-Intervention Committee. Therefore, a great many of the problems which hon. Members have suggested may come before British or other vessels are not likely to arise.
We have entered into an international agreement with a number of countries, and we cannot, except by a further international agreement, alter, amend or vary the terms of the international agreement that we have made. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) asked a question about having neutral naval officers upon these naval vessels. That may or may not be a point of substance. It is a matter which would have to be considered by the Non-Intervention Committee. It is a matter which cannot be agreed except by an international agreement. That international agreement could only be worked for and could only be procured if at all through the Non-Intervention Committee. The stage to which it can be taken as a result of the discussions in this Committee is that His Majesty's Government can call the attention of their representatives on the Non-Intervention Committee to the points which have been made in this discussion. Further than that it is not possible to go at this stage.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us an assurance that the Government will try to secure this system of neutral observers. I am bound to say that fills us with some misgivings, the more so because, in the original proceedings of the Non-Intervention Committee, it was in their power, as we pointed out yesterday, to support the Franco-Russian proposals for mixed patrols, and they joined with Italy and Germany in resisting those proposals, instead of lending them support. For that reason, the more welcome would be a declaration by the Government that they are going to work for this end and the more bitterly we regret that they cannot make it.

Dr. Burgin: I think the hon. Member has gone a good deal further than any words of mine justified him in going. What I was at pains to point out was that, an international agreement having been made, it could not be varied except by a further international agreement, and I said that the points raised in this Committee and in the House yesterday would be called to the attention of His Majesty's Goverment's representatives on the Non-Intervention Committee. From that the hon. Member for Derby seeks to draw the conclusion that I am not prepared to recommend that course. That is


quite an unjustified comment. I can give an immediate assurance that the matter will be considered and discussed. I cannot go further than that at this stage. I do not know the implications of carrying neutral naval officers on these naval vessels. I do not know whether that problem has been discussed in the Non-Intervention Committee. I take note of the point. I note the arguments that have been adduced in favour of it, and I say that it will be considered. But I would point out that, however much it might be considered or recommended, however much the Committee might want it, it could only be procured if all the nations were willing to agree, and if the agreement were procured in the form of the Non-Intervention Committee,

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not wish to misrepresent the Parliamentary Secretary. Our regret is that he cannot tell us that our representatives on that Committee will, on the instruction of the Government, make this proposal. If he could have told us that we should have been very glad. At this stage of the Bill—it was introduced some time ago—the Government might have been able to make up their minds. We are sorry that they cannot give us that assurance. It would have made a difference to our attitude. From all quarters attention was drawn to the matter yesterday, and there is widespread anxiety about it which is not confined to our benches.

Mr. Cocks: Can the Parliamentary Secretary deal with the point that I raised as to a ship being stopped and a rebel ship coming up and catching it, directly the officer from the warship had left it?

Dr. Burgin: I cannot deal with a number of hypothetical possibilities. We have entered into an agreement with a number of countries that the navies of four countries should have certain powers. It is impossible to assume that those powers are going to be exercised in some manner which is improper. It would be quite wrong for a Government spokesman in anything he might say during the passage of a Measure of this kind through Committee to give the slightest colour to the suggestion that His Majesty's Government credit those Governments with whom an international agreement has been made as being capable of conduct which would not mean the full imple-

menting of their obligations under the Agreement.
Hon Members opposite are pressing for an additional international agreement to be made. They are asking that there should be variations made in this scheme, that there should be revisions and that there should be additions to it. The speech of the hon. Member for Derby has been one continual suggestion that there should be further international agreements made. I ask the committee to realise how impossible it is at one moment to make the suggestion that there should be additional international agreements, and at the same time to suggest that the international agreement you make is no use. That is not possible.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked a question about territorial waters. His Majesty's Government do not assume that because these powers are conferred at 10 miles distance from the coast of Spain—

Sir S. Cripps: Within 10 miles.

Dr. Burgin: The powers begin at the 10 miles.

Sir S. Cripps: Within 10 miles.

Dr. Burgin: They begin at the 10 miles distance, but they are no doubt capable of being operated within. It is pure assumption that they are going to be utilised within what would be Spanish territorial waters. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to contemplate that possibility. There is no reason to assume that these powers will not be exercised within waters adjacent to Spain that are not Spanish territorial waters. That is the basis upon which the Government ask the Committee to deal with the Bill.

11.9 p.m.

Sir S. Griggs: The hon. Member has made two most amazing statements. He says that he does not wish to deal with hypothetical questions. What is the object of this Non-Intervention Committee? If all these nations are so trustworthy and so honest, why go to all this trouble? The whole basis of the agreement is that they are not; that somebody is going to try to run munitions and men into Spain. That is well known, and, with all respect, it would be stupid to imagine that the Italian Government, when they have large numbers of men fighting in Spain, are not going to be tempted to try and get supplies to those who are there.

The Deputy-Chairman: That seems to be a Second or Third Reading point.

Sir S. Cripps: I was referring to the hon. Gentleman's statement that the stopping or holding up of a ship was a hypothetical matter which he would not contemplate. I was pointing out that, in the circumstances in which this Bill was brought forward, it was a very likely event and that one of the ways of guarding against that was the one suggested by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), to have neutral observers on board. As the Clause stands at present, it gives no sort of protection against such an event happening. As to ships going into Spanish waters, the hon. Gentleman says that is hypothetical. If he means that it is not the intention of the British Government that these ships should go into Spanish territorial waters, why does not the Bill say so? Why does it give these powers of boarding ships in Spanish territorial waters?
He has not yet answered the question whether the Spanish Government has been consulted as regards the giving of these powers to foreign warships in Spanish territorial waters to search British vessels. If he really means that this is not intended to operate in Spanish territorial waters, will he alter the definition so that it does not read "the area within ten miles" but the area between three and ten miles, in order to make clear what I understand is an undertaking given to the House to-night, that it does not operate in Spanish territorial waters.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The explanation given by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary makes it clear that the Clause is an absurdity. If a British vessel is sailing with observers who are responsible to an administrator, and a warship stops it, what can the officers from the warship do? They can ask to see the registration papers and interview the observers. Of what value is that? The observers can themselves give the information to the administrator and the Non-Intervention Committee. What reason in the world is there for an Italian or German warship to stop a British ship in order to get from the observers information that the observers can give to the Non-Intervention Committee. Is it sensible? But suppose there are no observers on board, the ship may be carrying all sorts of material

and the officers from the warship can do nothing beyond asking for the registry. So the ship is stopped for no purpose whatever. Well, there is a purpose, but it is not a purpose which has been expressed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If a ship is going with material or food to Spanish Government ports it will be stopped, but there is no real legitimate purpose as regards what is called non-intervention, to be served by the Clause. The explanation of the Under-Secretary proved that the Clause is an absurdity. We have heard about observers taking ships into ports and seeing the cargoes unloaded to ascertain whether any contraband is hidden in them or not. I am certain that once the Bill is passed, we shall have German and Italian warships stopping British ships which are carrying material to the Spanish Government and taking them into these ports and it is no use saying that they have no power to do so. They will take the power out of what is in this Clause.
The Clause has no other object but that of harrying and harassing any ships that may be carrying material to the Spanish Government. I do not know how any hon. Member who has any regard for the old, great traditions of Britain can support the Clause. I have done a bit of sailing myself and when I was at sea if there had been any suggestion of Italians or Germans having power to stop British ships and interfere with British captains and crews, it would have been regarded as horrible. I can imagine what some of the old sea-dogs will say if German or Italian officers come aboard their ships under this legislation. You say you want to prevent a war in Europe—you are asking for a war in Europe. I ask the old Tories here to think of the traditions of the past and to repudiate this Clause, which can only bring about all kinds of nagging difficulties and trouble which is of no value for any real purposes of non-intervention and which may create a situation in which British ships can be held up and even sunk by armoured trawlers or vessels of that sort.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: We have often had opportunities of discussing Bills accompanied by White Papers and the issue of a White Paper has always been regarded as a valuable facility, to enable Members to


gain information about the background of the Bill to which it refers. But this is the first time I have known the terms of a White Paper to be used in order to interpret the language of the Bill itself. It has been the custom and indeed the rule in the past that when a Bill is being considered in Committee, it is examined with a view to finding out what interpretation can be placed upon the language of the Bill itself. From time to time we have had the benefit of the views of hon. and learned Members who have placed different constructions upon the wording of Bills, but this evening we are being asked to accept the interpretation contained in the White Paper which is not part of the Bill. I will not pursue that point, but as this one of the occasions on which we are discussing a Bill which implements an international agreement, it is necessary to examine its terms closely. The Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who asked him whether the consent of the Spanish Government had been obtained for this intrusion into Spanish territorial waters. As we understand it, Italian and German fleets are given power to ply within Spanish territorial waters and to board English vessels. As I understand it—and it has not been contradicted—the allocation of areas contained in the White Paper is such that the coast of Spain in the region of Almeria to the French boarder is to be handed over for supervision to the German and Italian Navies, and all English ships plying within those waters and entering the Spanish zone are open to be boarded by officers and men of those fleets.
I want to know whether the Spanish Government have been asked to agree to that invasion of their sovereign powers, because the Spanish Government are entitled to be considered on an equality with the other 27 countries which are asked to be signatories to this agreement. The Parliamentary Secretary has not yet replied to that question, and we must have a reply before we proceed to a Division on this issue because I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side will not agree to such an abrogation of Spanish sovereign powers. The Spanish Government have sovereign rights in these waters, and their consent should be obtained before we agree to such an

invasion of their rights. If the Spanish Government were not embarrassed by the rebellion of General Franco and had a large fleet, we would not dare to interfere in such a way, but we are solemnly sitting in the House of Commons taking advantage of the weakness of the Spanish Government to deprive her of sovereign rights. I would like to know whether the consent of the Council of the League of Nations has been obtained to justify—[Laughter.] Hon. Members smile, but they did not smile last time when the First Lord of the Admiralty, after he resigned as Foreign Secretary, apologised from that bench because he dare not carry out the policy of this House because he was afraid of the Italian Navy. If we had equal fear of the Spanish Navy, we would not be carrying these powers this evening because they are a direct violation of the Spanish Government's rights.
I am entitled to ask whether the Council of the League have been asked to agree to this intrusion upon the rights of Spain. Spain has, under the Covenant of the League, full rights within her own territorial waters, and here we are agreeing to an act of aggression. We are agreeing to handing over the territorial waters of a member of the League to alien Powers. We are handing over the territorial waters of a member of the League to a country which has withdrawn from the League. We are full of suspicion as to how these powers will be exercised. We have not the slightest confidence in the pledged word of Italy or Germany, nor have the Government themselves. If they had confidence in their pledged word this Bill would not be necessary. We have already agreed to the policy of non-intervention and it is because some Powers, and we know who they are—Italy and Germany—have not honoured that pledge that we are called upon to discuss this Bill.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Are there any other nations which have not honoured the pledge?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member does not often honour us with his presence. We have discussed on the Second Reading and on a number of occasions this question of the civil war in Spain, and it has been established beyond all doubt that the first interventions in Spain were by Italy and Germany.

Hon. Members: And Russia.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is getting away from the Clause.

Mr. Bevan: That is certainly true, but I have been carried away by a number of irrelevant interruptions, and I do not propose to follow them up further. If the hon. Member wishes to do so he will have an opportunity of making his case on the Third Reading of the Bill, and then we shall be able to hear what evidence he can bring forward. The issue is that the Government hold that the undertakings have not been carried out. Does the hon. Member agree with that? It is because they have not been carried out that we are being asked to give away the traditional rights of the British mercantile marine, to expose them to the obligation to submit to being boarded by the officers of foreign fleets, and we on this side have the gravest suspicion of how those powers will be exercised, because if the nations which have broken their undertakings are the nations which are to be given the right to board British vessels, then the question of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) becomes very pertinent. What guarantee have we that the fleets of Italy and Germany will not hold up British vessels going to Spanish ports with food for Spain, perhaps hold them up indefinitely and expose them to the risk of being sunk by Franco's fleet? Surely it is fantastic that the Committee should be asked to put such powers into the hands of nations which have been declared by His Majesty's Government to be so untrustworthy that they have to ask for legislation of this kind. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade now has the support of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so that perhaps the insularities which are inevitable under the specialisation of the Board of Trade will be assisted by the cosmopolitanism of the Foreign Office. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will tell us whether the permission of the Council of the League has been obtained for this abrogation of Spanish sovereign powers. If he cannot do so, we shall divide the Committee against this Clause.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: There is a very substantial point on which the Committee should have further information. Would not the

Parliamentary Secretary agree to insert the words "outside Spanish territorial waters"? If the master of a British ship inside Spanish territorial waters is called upon to stop, but does not do so, is he guilty of a misdemeanour or not? As a lawyer, I would have great doubt about his position, in those conditions. Clause 4 defines what is adjacent to Spanish territory as 10 miles from the Spanish coast. Under International Law I would say that the master would have a real defence, because he would say that he was in Spanish territorial waters and that this sub-section did not apply to him, and that therefore he was under no compulsion to stop. I hope that I have made plain to the Parliamentary Secretary the difficulty that I feel in this matter. He will not deny that under International Law the master of a ship would be under no necessity to stop, and would have a good defence for not stopping when called upon.
The Committee are entitled to know whether the Clause proposes to over-ride International Law. The Parliamentary Secretary said, when he replied, that he was not denying or asserting whether International Law would apply to Spanish territorial waters in connection with this sanction. The Committee should insist on getting clearly what the views of the Government are on this matter, in view of the rights of the master of a ship, and so that our sailors will know what their position is. If the Government intend that International Law shall be overridden they should make that intention plainer than it is at present, so that individuals shall not be put to a great deal of expense because of this Measure.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said he was not going to impute bad faith to any of the nations that were signatories of this agreement. There is no necessity for the purposes of my point, to impute bad faith to any nation; but is there anything in this Measure to prevent a rebel warship from sailing in company with one of the patrol warships and so being able, immediately a ship is stopped and the patrol warship has done its duty, to pounce upon the ship and seize it? If there is nothing in the Bill to stop that, I can only suggest the Government have either fallen into a Fascist trap or are themselves a party to an agreement to handicap the Spanish Government and assist the rebels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has clearly shown that by this Measure the House of Commons is being invited deliberately to infringe the Covenant of the League of Nations. I think most Members of this Committee have been under the impression that the right to search would be exercised within, say, 10 miles of the Spanish coast; but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent warships from following ships right into the territorial waters, into the harbours themselves, into the harbours of Barcelona or Valencia or even up rivers—as long as they are tidal rivers—almost into the interior of the country. I am sure the Government have not considered this matter. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is a strong advocate of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and his chief has said over and over again that British foreign policy is founded on the Covenant of the League of Nations. So has the Prime Minister; so has the Home Secretary; so have all sorts of Members of the Government who, while giving lip service to the League, have done their best to see it broken in many respects. Surely they cannot mean to come down to the House and ask us to legislate to commit a breach of the Covenant of the League of Nations. I suggest that they have overlooked this point. Now that it has been brought to their notice, I suggest that they should adjourn this discussion and reconsider the Bill. Because of the extraordinary position which has now shown itself to the Committee, I desire to move to report Progress.

The Chairman: I cannot accept that Motion.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I submit that on two occasions the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has been asked perfectly proper questions—

The Chairman: We are now dealing with the question of a Motion to report Progress, and I have ruled that I cannot accept it. It cannot be discussed.

Mr. Bevan: I was not addressing myself to my hon. Friend's proposal, but to the fact that on two occasions the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, flanked by the President of the Board of Trade and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has been asked a perfectly proper question—

whether the Spanish Government did not object to this invasion of its sovereign rights. We have been told on a number of occasions that it is the policy of the Government to protect, in co-operation with other members of the League, the sovereign rights of any member of the League. It is hardly consistent with that policy that we should be asked to discuss a Bill which delegates those rights to a nation not a member of the League. I should like to know what is the position of the front Opposition Bench on the matter. It is rather astonishing that we have no statement of any kind. Are they conniving at this abrogation of Spanish sovereign powers? [Interruption.] I have had enough experience to know that hon. Members are like Mussolini. They will violate their pledges whenever they have an opportunity. A large number of them hold their seats because at the last Election they stood for the League of Nations.

The Chairman: I must again ask the hon. Member when he is addressing the Committee to keep to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Bevan: If you read Clause 2—

The Chairman: That has nothing to do with how hon. Members did or did not gain their seats at the last Election.

Mr. Bevan: I submit, with all respect, that it is rather difficult to rule until the point of Order has been submitted. We are discussing Clause 2, under which, as it has been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary, powers are being given to other countries to use their fleets in Spanish waters to board vessels of the British Mercantile Marine. The country whose powers are being given away in that regard is a member of the League of Nations. Is it not competent for me to argue that it is inconsistent with the declared foreign policy of the Government and with their pledges at the last Election that they should give away to a non-member of the League the sovereign powers of a member of the League?

The Chairman: I did not stop the hon. Member for arguing that point. He may proceed with the argument on the question before the Committee. I shall not interrupt him except when I think he is going outside the question before the Committee.

Mr. Bevan: So far, I have been addressing myself exclusively to that violation of Government pledges.

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Question before the Committee, and not to argue the ruling that I have given.

Mr. Bevan: I ask hon. Members opposite whether it is not a fact that it is the declared policy of the Government to stand by the League of Nations? I accept their silence as assent. Is it not a fact that Spain has equal rights with any other Member of the League? I again accept their silence as assent. The waters within 10 miles of the Spanish shores are Spanish territorial waters. I ask the hon. Members—it is obviously necessary to use Socratic methods with them—is it not the fact that this Bill confers upon the Italian and the German navies the power to go within Spanish territorial waters? If that be so, is it not a violation of Spanish sovereign rights? I cannot get any reply. If that is so, is it not an invitation to an aggression against Spain? The reason why the aggression is agreed to, is because Spain is not strong enough to resist the aggression. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—and I shall continue to ask until I get a reply—whether the consent of the Spanish Government has been obtained to this proposal? If the consent of the Spanish Government has not been obtained to this proposal, is it consistent with the attitude of His Majesty's Government upon foreign policy to persist in this proposal? If, indeed, the Under-Secretary answers that the consent of the Spanish Government has not been obtained, I submit that, in accordance with Parliamentary practice, it is competent for the Opposition to move to report Progress. It is really an outrage that we should have from the Government Front Bench no reply at all to a first-class question of this kind. If we are to connive at this violation of the sovereign rights of members of the League, even if those members are weak, we are making it possible for all other nations, who have any mind or desire so to do, to violate the League. We are entitled to ask for an answer to that question.

11.47 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I asked a perfectly simple question of the Front Bench three-quarters

of an hour ago.—[Interruption.] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Will he get up and make the remark he desires?

Major Hills: I said that the Front Bench has been given no chance to answer.

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. I had to rise when I did because the Chairman had risen to put the Question, and if I had not done so, it would have been out of order and I should have lost the opportunity. I am glad to know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees with me that they should have answered, and I am giving them a further opportunity. I asked the question—quite a simple one—Have the Spanish Government been consulted as regards the use of these powers in territorial waters? If the Board of Trade cannot answer that question, the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he is still awake, can probably do so. May I ask another question? Perhaps they will be better able to answer it? I understand that the Board of Trade have recently sent a representative to interview General Franco at Burgos, a thing of which I do not understand the propriety, when, in the circumstances which are ruling in Spain at the present time, he is an enemy of a friendly Government? Did that gentleman who went there ask General Franco as to what his observations would be about the exercise of these powers within the waters adjacent to that part of Spain over which he has at present no control?
These are two simple questions, and if none of the occupants of the Front Bench is able to answer them, we can only assume that the reason they do not answer is because they have not consulted the Spanish Government, and they know that this is a violation of their international obligations.

11.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): The Spanish Government have been informed of all the provisions of this scheme, and so far they have made no objection of any kind. I do not see why the hon. and learned Gentleman should take the place of the Spanish Government in this affair. He might leave them to conduct their own business.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: In the interests of the Masters of British ships I am entitled to an answer to the question I am asking—whether the Solicitor-General agrees that if the master of a ship is ordered to stop in Spanish territorial waters, and does not stop, he will have a perfectly good defence under the law of nations because Clause 4 will not apply? The question is simply and courteously put, and I am entitled to an answer. The captains in the British Mercantile Marine are entitled to know what is their position.

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. Stephen: I do not know why the Under-Secretary or the Solicitor-General, or the President of the Board of Trade will not give me an answer. The question is worthy of an answer. I do not want to take up any additional time of the Committee in connection with this matter, but surely the people who will have to face the dangers and difficulties are entitled to know what is the position. I cannot make out whether it is, that the Government have no one sufficiently acquainted with the law present, but I should have thought that the Solicitor-General would have been able to give an answer to such a simple question. I can only assume that there is no member of the Government able to answer it. Yet the masters of ships will have to find an answer when they are in these circumstances. The many hon. Members who claim to be so interested in the welfare of masters of ships should give me their support in getting an answer from the Government. I have made my protest, and I shall hope that I may get an answer. I do not want to get unduly excited. If it is an offence already let us know what the position is.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I had no intention of asking my hon. Friend behind me to divide against this Clause, but the Government have behaved in such an extraordinary way that we shall have to reconsider the position. Their behaviour is perfectly ridiculous. Quite a simple question has been put and has remained unanswered. Hon. Members opposite cannot defend that. The right hon. Gentleman member for Ripon (Major Hills) could not believe that the Government would not answer the ques-

tion and said that they had not been given an opportunity to reply. No attempt was made by any hon. Member on the Government bench to rise to make a reply. The President of the Board of Trade has not made a single attempt to clear up the effects of the Bill, and while the Parliamentary Secretary has made a number of attempts to give an explanation within the limits of his knowledge, there are still important matters upon which no reply has been given. After all, we are considering an entirely new principle of sea law, and it is not unreasonable to ask that the position should be made clear. The fact is that the Government do not know. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a statement just now. I should like to know in what form the Spanish Government was given to understand the effect of these measures and what precisely was their attitude. The Committee is being treated with the utmost discourtesy, and unless we get an adaquate reply, I shall certainly ask my hon Friends to vote against the Clause.

11.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I can assure hon. Members that there is no desire to be discourteous. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) that I should find no difficulty in answering his question but for the fact that it might create possible embarrassment in our relations with Spain. My difficulty arises from this fact. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of Spain is aware that ever since the war of the Spanish Succession the question of what are the territorial waters of Spain has been the subject of discussion, and when a question is put to the Government the answer to which involves some pronouncement as to what we recognise as the territorial waters in Spain this is the worst of tall moments to discuss it. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that that is a candid statement, and the only embarrassment we feel. Subject to that, let me say that there is no intention, by Clause 2, to abrogate existing international law.
Without making any statement as to what we recognise as the territorial limits of Spanish waters I can say that existing international law is not abrogated in any way; that is to say, ships within


Spanish territorial waters will in future be in the same position as they would be if this Bill were not passed. Those who have studied the White Paper closely will have seen that it does suggest provisions which go a good deal further and which provide for pursuit in Spanish waters, but they will not find that in the Bill. I am correct in saying that we have endeavoured not to abrogate the principle of international law, and I hope, with that explanation, I shall not be pressed to say what particular limit of mileage we should recognise as Spanish territorial waters.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer and from the answer of the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the Spanish Government have been consulted and have agreed to a right of pursuit by foreign vessels into their territorial waters?

The Solicitor-General: That is not to be understood. What my noble Friend told the Committee was that they had been informed of the provisions of the Agreement. They have not notified their acceptance or otherwise of those provisions. If I may say so, that is not the question that is before the Committee in regard to this Bill, because, as I have been trying to explain, the Bill does tot go as far in this respect as the Agreement itself.

12.3 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I must controvert what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said to the Committee. This Bill deals with British ships and the masters of what are known as British ships, and it imposes penalties upon them if they fail to do certain things. Now, the war vessels we are discussing at the moment are not British ships, and therefore we have no jurisdiction or control over them. At this stage, if a British vessel does not permit a German officer to board it two miles from the Spanish coast, the master is guilty of a misdemeanour. I know the discussion has been about the territorial waters of Spain, but no one would dispute that a mile in Valencia harbour or Barcelona harbour is the territorial waters of Spain. This Bill is creating a new statutory offence, the refusal of a British vessel at Barcelona harbour to permit a

German officer to go on board. That is the offence.

The Solicitor-General: I think that inadvertently the hon. and learned Gentleman is giving a construction to this Clause which it will not bear. He will see that under Sub-section (2), the provision that a ship of war must fulfil—that is to say, in the case he is putting, a foreign ship of war—must be that:
the ship must be in such of the said waters as may be so declared to have been placed under the observation of the Power to which the ship belongs;
and then, if he will look at Sub-section (3), it reads:
Any order under this Section shall be made by the Secretary of State, and may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made by the Secretary of State,
so that the order of the Secretary of State will be valid in the area within which the ship of war goes.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely not. The Solicitor-General is now trying to say that the Secretary of State will not follow the White Paper. What the Secretary of State has to do, if he is an honest man, is to act in accordance with the international arrangement which covers the whole of the waters within f o miles of the Spanish coast, including the territorial waters of Spain. I do not presume that the Secretary of State will be so dishonest as to make out his Order under Sub-section (3) as to fail to include some parts of the waters he has agreed to include in the international agreement with 27 other nations. The position, therefore, is not at all as the hon. and learned Gentleman put it. The position is that this Clause creates a new statutory offence—a misdemeanour in one case, and in another case a statutory offence liable to a fine of £100 on any master or owner of a British vessel who refuses within Spanish territorial waters to allow a German or an Italian officer to board his ship and do the various matters which are detailed in this Clause. There has been no explanation as to how that is consistent with the obligations of this country to preserve the territorial integrity of Spain under the Covenant of the League. Of course, we know that the Government have not done that with regard to the civil war, but that is another matter. Here is another case where the sovereignty of


the Spanish Government is being purposely infringed by this Government, and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against such a course being adopted.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to take exception to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary quoted the White Paper and said that the Bill expressed what was in it; and he used the White Paper with the greatest effect to justify his statement. The Solicitor-General told us that it is in the White Paper, but not in the Bill, and that therefore we do not have to trouble about it. Surely it is not permissible for two representatives of the Government to put two opposite points of view in regard to the relation of the While Paper to the Bill. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), if a British ship is in the hands of a capable master, who has a knowledge of international law, and if he is sailing in Spanish territorial waters and refuse to stop if signalled by an Italian or German cruiser, can that cruiser fire on his ship?

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[12.9 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
De Chair, S. S.
Keeling, E. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Denman, Ron, R. D.
Kimball, L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Doland, G. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Donner, P. W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Apsley, Lord
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Leckie, J. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Duggan, H. J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Balfour, Capl. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Loftus, P. C.


Beauohamp, Sir B. C.
Emery, J. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Boulton, W. W.
Everard, W. L.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Furness, S. N.
McKie, J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Granville, E. L. Gridiny, Sir A. B.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bull, B. B.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Burghley, Lord
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Burgin, Or. E. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Butler, R. A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Carver, Major W. H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hannah, I. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Patrick, C. M.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Peaks, O.


Channon, H.
Haslam, H. C. (Hornoastle)
Penny, Sir G.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Crooke, J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Radford, E. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cross, R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Culverwell, C. T.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rayner, Major R. H.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Cocks: Mr. Cocks rose—

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Bevan: (Seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Dennis. I want to submit to you that, when you put the Question, there were two hon. Members on their feet desiring to continue the discussion. I submit that if those hon. Members had not caught your eye at that moment, you should now permit them to go on with the discussion without taking a Division at this time.

The Chairman: I had put the Question and started to collect the voices before the hon. Members rose.

Mr. Bevan: I submit that in that matter you may have misjudged the position, as it is easy to do so.

The Chairman: Then the hon. Member must suffer for my misjudgment. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Bevan: It is a misjudgment that happens often.

The Commtitee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes. 62.

Beed, A. C. (Exeter)
Somerset, T.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsand)


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Waterhousa, Captain C.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spans. W. P.
Wadderburn, H. J. S.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ron Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Rowlands, G.
Tata, Mavis C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wintarton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salt, E. W.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wragg, H.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Turton, R. H.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.



Simmonds, O. E.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Mr. James Stuart and Sir Henry




Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pritt, D. N.


Adam son, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanally)
Rowson, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Silkin, L.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Simpson, F. B.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Stephen, C.


Cooks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Westwood, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Dobbie, W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Ede, J. C.
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Parker, J.



Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gallacher, W.
Potts, J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Price, M. P.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power by Order in Council to give effect to amendments of agreement and arrangements made in pursuance thereof.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and the other hon. Members who have put down Amendments to this Clause do not desire to move them.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.19 a.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: The point which we wished to raise by the Amendments on the Paper can, perhaps, be considered better on the Clause as a whole. The Clause empowers the Government to extend or amend the Act in any way they think desirable. Some of us feel that, in view of the vagueness which surrounds the Measure and the uncertainty as to whether it does or does not carry out the terms of the White Paper and the agreement, and also as to what the developments from it may be, it would be much better, in the event of considerable alterations being required in the Act to carry out the agreement, if the Government were to come back to the House and get power from the House to amend the Act

when necessary and not be empowered to do so by Order at their own will without giving any opportunity either for the discussion of how this scheme has worked in practice or without offering an opportunity of criticism of a new agreement. I should like to see the Government take that course, because they have been singularly unresponsive to questions on this subject. They are uncertain how the scheme will work in practice and I think we are fully justified in asking that before it is altered and wider powers are given, we should be consulted again. There is one particular point in one of the Amendments which we put on the Order Paper to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, and that is the penalties which they may enforce under this Bill. They have power under Clause 3 (1) vary the penalties which may be enforced in the case of contravention of the Bill, and there is apparently absolutely no limit to the penalty which they may impose. The Bill as it stands at present, says:
and any such Order may contain provisions for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties in respect of breaches of the Order.
There is absolutely no definition as to what those penalties may be. I suppose,


under that, they can impose by Order any penalties they care to impose. For these reasons we feel that this Section is unnecessary and thoroughly undesirable. The Bill, as it is, opens the door to wide enough breaches in international law without giving the Government an opportunity of widening it even further without consultation. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to another matter on this Section, but it is so wide that I feel that perhaps anything which is in the White Paper may be referred to. This is a matter which I should have raised on the previous Clause, had I beet, fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. In paragraph 29 of this White Paper it is laid down that it may he necessary for those countries on the borders of Spain to guard the ends of the territorial waters. The words used are:
In order to avoid the risk of ships escaping observation by entering Spanish territorial waters directly from the territorial waters of one of the adjacent countries, the Governments of the adjacent countries will themselves exercise observation over ships passing through those waters.
I would like to ask, what can that possibly mean in view of the reply which we received just now that ships may be followed into territorial waters?

The Deputy-Chairman: Is the hon. Member suggesting that that could be done by Order in Council?

Mr. Roberts: Yes. I understand that any alteration as regards this can be made by Order in Council under this Clause and that is why I am raising it. I should like to ask what this Clause can possibly mean? As I understand it, a ship can be pursued into territorial waters. We have just been informed about that. If that is so, why is there any necessity to have paragraph 29 of the White Paper? Why is it necessary to agree that the adjacent countries shall specially guard the ends of those territorial waters?

The Deputy-Chairman: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Clause says that His Majesty, by Order in Council, can give orders to those adjacent countries to do anything, because otherwise he is out of order?

Mr. Roberts: This is a question of what orders the masters of British ships are to accept from foreign warships.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is certainly not affected by this Clause.

Mr. Stephen: I would like to point out that the Committee have been told by the Government that under Clause 2 they have permission to impose orders in connection with other Governments.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is conceivable that His Majesty's Government may impose orders on British ships, but what the hon. Member was asking was what control other countries had over their territorial waters, and that is obviously outside the Clause.

Mr. Roberts: May I suggest that a British ship in Spanish territorial waters, or passing into Spanish territorial waters, may be interfered with by the warships of those countries which are continguous to Spanish waters, and what I was asking was whether it was proper for the captain of a British ship to submit to such orders, and whether this is one of the things which may be required by order under the Clause we are discussing? The Clause is so vague and so widely drawn that it does appear that any of the proposals in the White Paper which have not been implemented by the Bill so far may in future be raised under this Clause. Therefore, I should like to ask, if I am in order, what steps may be taken under this Clause to implement provisions in the White Paper.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I should like to emphasise one point raised by my hon. Friend, and that is the extraordinary penal provisions if this Clause. I should like the Solicitor-General to tell us whether there is any precedent, or at any rate, any recent precedent, for giving His Majesty the power to make orders for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties which are absolutely unlimited. There may be a very important class of offences to be dealt with, but surely the subject should know, and should know from this House by legislation, of the risks and dangers he is running on his unlawful occasions.
Under this he might be shot at dawn. There might be something with boiling oil in it under the provisions of Sub-section 1 (3) and this can be done by the power of the executive without any check. I have no desire to interfere in any way with the proper object of the Bill, but I do hope we may have some assertions from the hon. and learned Gentleman


opposite or anybody else who replies, that before now and the Report stage the very wide provisions here given will be considered with a view to some possible limitation. There was one put down in the Amendment; and I do not press for that one in particular, but there should be more amendment to prevent the absolutely unlimited encroachment by the executive upon the liberty and, indeed, it might be upon the life of the subject. It is a matter of some seriousness.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Bevan: Several hon. Members on this side of the House as well as myself have tried with very little success to impress upon hon. Members opposite the extreme difficulty under which the Committee labours in having to consider a Bill or so original a character as this. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that it was the purpose of the Bill to implement the White Paper. That is in itself a very original situation. I think hon. Members who are not able to sympathise with us on the last Clause will realise the difficulties that are being raised by the position in this clause, because if the language of the White Paper is included as a part of the Bill, then one would be able to see what are the limitations of the power conferred by this clause. The Bill says:
His Majesty may make such Orders in Council as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to any arrangements made in pursuance of the provisions of the observation agreement.
The words of the observation agreement are not part of the Bill. They are a part of the White Paper. In fact, we are doing a quite original thing. We are not conferring upon the Government power—the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I may be wrong in my interpretation. If I am I will immediately give way. The observation agreement is the agreement made with 27 other Powers, and it is that agreement which is explained in the White Paper. Am I right or wrong?

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member constantly refers to the White Paper as though it were something different from the observation agreement. There is no White Paper in the ordinary sense at all. The White Paper in this case is the instrument. It is the whole of the Observation agreement and nothing but the agreement.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman, in his reply, has confirmed my position, so that we may speak of the observation agreement and the White Paper as one and the same document. Therefore, the words in this clause "the provisions of the observation agreement" means the agreement as set out in the White Paper which is not in the Bill. The first point to be made is that we are not conferring upon the Government in this matter powers to make Orders with respect to a Bill. We have had that before. That has been very reluctantly conceded by the House, but nevertheless has been conceded on more than one occasion. In this respect we are conferring powers on the Government not to make Orders in respect of the provisions of the Bill before the House of Commons, the provisions of which we know, the limitations of which we are aware, and the conditions with which we are familiar. No. Beyond that, we are dealing not only with the provisions of the Bill itself, but with respect to the provisions of an agreement not before the House, and not in fact part of the legislation of this House.
I submit that these are most original provisions. I respectfully submit that the learned Solicitor-General cannot provide this evening a single precedent for a provision of this kind. Let me make the point quite clear. It is obvious that it would be possible to find precedents for Orders in Council, or rather for powers to make Orders in Council, in pursuance of the provisions of a Bill. That has been done with regard to an unlimited number of measures. But here you are giving to the Government power to make Orders in Council for an agreement which is not contained in the Bill and which may in fact be changed without the consent of this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but if he looks at the language of the clause he will see that it is so widely drawn that even that generous interpretation may be sustained, because it says "may in pursuance of the provisions" The International Committee may take any view as to what it is necessary to do in order to give effect to the provisions of the agreement. So it is possible for them to vary even the provisions of the White Paper as they are before us at the present time.
Even if the language of the Bill does not sustain that wider interpretation I am


sure that hon. Members opposite, if they will give me their attention, will agree that it is an extraordinary power to give to the executive to make Orders in Council—the hon. Member may smile, but I am sure all his colleagues do not take the same frivolous view of the issue before the House. If other members who have sat in the House many years before him had taken the same frivolous view of their parliamentary obligations, neither he nor we would be here at the present time. The hon. Member surely is not doing himself justice in this matter, because here we are handing over to the executive, power actually to carry legislation without consulting the House at all. The right hon. Gentleman used to be the champion of parliamentary liberty but now of course he has become the legal hack of the Government.
The next thing goes much further. It goes on to impose on some of the citizens of Great Britain the position of being made offenders against a law to an entirely unknown extent. As my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, it is possible for the Government to imprison persons, and indeed it might be possible to execute a person under this clause. There is certainly a limitation. The limitation is contained in subsection (3) of the clause, and it says that the Order shall cease to have effect 28 days after it is made, unless Parliament has previously approved of it. It goes on, in the common form of clauses of this kind, to say that no account shall be taken of any days when Parliament is not sitting.
In other words, it may be possible for citizens of Great Britain to be imprisoned for four months before Parliament had any opportunity of considering the matter at all. If the Order in Council is made at the end of July, and Parliament is adjourned for the summer recess, it is possible for a citizen to be imprisoned for three or four months without any opportunity of Parliamentary redress. I know it is extremely difficult at this time of night, and with my limited legal gifts, to make this situation convincing for other Members in all parts of the Committee. They are, indeed, in this matter carrying powers which may be very useful for us. I always believe that the Tories have far less respect for the constitution than the hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. I am against this because it is very obviously conferring powers over the

subject without any protection to the public.

Mr. Petherick: The hon. Member says this is a very good precedent.

Mr. Bevan: Once you have told me, or my hon. and learned friend here (Sir S. Cripps), that you do not desire any constitutional protection, we shall remember that in the days when you may ask for constitutional protection. You are telling us that any citizen of Great Britain can be imprisoned by a decision of the Executive and that for four months he can suffer the penalties imposed without redress—without recourse to the courts. This gives power to the Executive to imprison any person without even reference to the courts. It says, "by summary process or otherwise." What does "otherwise" mean? It means that officers of the Government can seize a citizen and put him in prison without even getting a conviction against him in the courts. I am told that it may mean by indictment, but it does not say so. I, therefore, submit that the Committee should not part with this provision without getting a better explanation from the Government.
On the Second Reading of this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary was asked whether it was necessary that these powers should be given in order that this international agreement might be carried out. A case might be made that swift action has to be taken in order to implement an agreement of this kind; that circumstances may vary from time to time; that the international situation may change, and that it may be necessary to have powers to be exercised to carry out an international agreement. That, obviously, involves the power on the part of the Government to take very serious action indeed. Under these powers they may involve this country in an international incident which might easily lead to war. That is not beyond any possibility of doubt, because the Government say that effectively to blockade the coasts against munitions of war it may be necessary drastically to increase the penalties and make more strict the curtain to be drawn around Spain. These powers may create a situation in which this country might be drawn into an international imbroglio.
I say that it is not necessary to give these powers. Parliament may be con-


vened, or Parliament may be sitting at the time. There is no urgency about this, because the Government say that the provisions of this Bill are not to be exercised unless the other 27 nations to the agreement agree. If that be so, and this particular Bill it not to be implemented until they all agree, then any alteration of the Bill would be in the same position. The proposal to alter the Bill would be known weeks before the alteration could be implemented by international agreement. The one reason advanced for this unprecedented departure from Parliamentary practice is the urgency of the international situation; the fact that it may be necessary for the Government to act immediately. That is the only reason we have had. I believe it will be the only reason we shall have from the Front Bench. If it be true that the agreement cannot be operated until every Parliament of the 27 nations has carried a Bill to implement the agreement, and that any alteration of the agreement will not be put into effect until 27 Parliaments have implemented it, where is the urgency? Unless we have from the Front Bench far more cogent reasons thin we have had so far, there is no justification for ever allowing the Government unprecedented powers.

12.48 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: It is very easy at a quarter to one in the morning to treat with extreme lightness a clause such as this. I venture to think that if a similar clause had been allowed to be inserted in other Bills which have passed through this House, the state of the law in this country would be very different from what it is. I remember on one occasion in the last Parliament I pointed out that one clause, not as strong as this, which gave power to the Executive, would form a very valuable precedent for future legislation by other Parliaments. When that clause came back from another place it had been entirely altered and very much improved, so far as this House was concerned. This clause is quite unprecedented in more than one way. The most important way is that it gives a Minister power by Order to amend this Bill and enter into other engagements relating to merchant shipping. That is a power no Minister has ever yet had, so far as I am aware.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when he moved the Second Reading, drew the attention of the House to this section because of its extremely novel nature. It could only be something of the most extreme kind which could possibly justify putting in the hands of a Minister the power, without consultation with this House, to make an amendment in any of the laws relating to merchant shipping. This is essentially a matter which requires discussion. The merchant shipping laws are laws which are of great importance to the industry of this country, to the seamen and to the shipowners, to the masters and to others. There is no limitation whatsoever as to the matters which may be dealf with in the amending or supplemental provisions which may be introduced with regard to this matter. It is to be observed that the power of making Orders is not, as a matter of fact, limited to powers dealing with the shipping side of the observation agreement. It, in fact, covers the whole of the observation agreement—land and sea. The only excuse put forward for this Bill, or which could be adduced for the giving of these extremely exceptional powers, was the excuse which is made by all Departments of the State—that it is much more convenient if you want to act rapidly not to have to consult the House of Commons. I admit that. Of course, it is much more convenient. It would be much more convenient for the Cabinet if it never had to come here at all. It would be able to get on with its business, no doubt, very much more rapidly, but perhaps not so efficiently as far as public opinion in the country is concerned.
Is there really this extreme urgency? I could understand it if the Minister were asking for powers to make some small alterations as regards the detailed matters arising under the existing agreement, but I suggest that there is no justification whatsoever for asking for powers to make an Order dealing with a new agreement altogether, because when that new agreement is made it must be brought before this House in some form or another in order that the House may say whether it approves taking some fresh step in this perfectly novel procedure. What that step may be it is absolutely impossible to forecast, and even if it did entail, as it might, calling the House together in the middle of a recess, this is, in my


submission, a matter of sufficient importance for us to say that that step should be taken, rather than to create a precedent by which we are enabling Ministers to deal with legislation without any check on them.
This check of the positive passing of the Order 28 days afterwards is perfectly illusory. Any Government which has made that Order has got to insist on it being passed through this House. They could not conceivably come before the House and say, "We made the Order and we were fools to make it, and now we ask you not to pass it". They are bound to put the Whips on to see that it is passed through. No Amendment of any sort or kind can be made in the procedure. Therefore it becomes merely automatic registration, once it is enforced. Of course, if this Order has to be passed by this House before it comes into force, that is an entirely different proposition. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that there is no necessity for this haste, and that a Bill can well be brought before the House if a new agreement is entered into with these various countries. It is going to take weeks, or, at any rate, a period of time to negotiate it. The other maritime Powers have got to introduce similar legislation. It cannot be rushed through when it has to do with 27 countries, and we do not want it rushed through in this country, whatever the provisions are. This Bill can only be of value and importance if it be contemplated that some unilateral action might be taken by this country without reference to action by other countries at the same time or within a similar period of time. Therefore, I ask the Government to withdraw the first Subsection of this Clause, and not to give more powers to the Minister than are essential for putting right details which arise out of the existing agreement which is in operation, or which is being brought into operation by this Bill.

12.55 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: Nobody who belongs to the profession to which my hon. and learned Friend and I belong could possibly resist making a speech of the kind which he has just made when confronted with a Clause of this character. From the professional point of view, and from the point of view of the attitude of mind of the lawyer, or one who seeks to be a lawyer, it is

admittedly a very difficult Clause to defend. I confess, however, that the only lawyer I might have expected to be a little kinder to the Clause is the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, because it seemed to me that the principle underlying this Clause—of speed and decision, of action and of avoiding all the disconcerting machinery of a democratic assembly which was hampering legislation—all these were motives that were very dear to the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind. I must have thoroughly misunderstood his philosophy if I have misinterpreted him.
Be that so or not, I recognise, of course, and it would be disingenuous not to, that these are very unusual powers. But they are not unique, as he seemed to think. They are unique in one respect—as regards the penalties; I can say that at once. I know of no precedent for a Clause of this kind leaving the penalties entirely open, but it is certainly not unique as regards the other powers which it authorises the executive Government to use. A not dissimilar Section appears in the Government of India Act, permitting amendment by Order in Council of the enactment itself. But, as my hon. Friend told the House, we are dealing in this Bill with a situation that is entirely without precedent. We on this side of the House are constantly having urged on us the need for an international approach to all kinds of problems. If you are going to do that, you must make some breaches in the ordinary domestic legislative methods of this country. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you are going to implement by domestic legislation what may be a loose, to some extent a woolly, and to some extent an ill-expressed agreement between 27 other nations, you have got to have some kind of provision that will enable you to expand and contract your domestic legislation in order that you may cover the area.
Instances have been given in this Debate to-night. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), for example, gave some instances which certainly made me pause and think a little, of the ways in which the supervision of the naval authorities might be evaded. Suppose this Bill permits evasions of that kind. Suppose the working of the Bill is defective. It is just for that kind of reason


that we are taking these exceptional powers so as by Order in Council to make the Act an effective means of carrying into operation the agreement to which we have set our hands. With regard to the penalties, I agree that on paper, of course, it would enable us to make an Order in Council whereby peoples heads can be chopped off, instead of their being fined £100. In theory that is perfectly possible, but in practice there is the need to get an affirmative resolution from both Houses of Parliament. Apart from that, the Government in these days, when gusts of popular opinion are very strong could not pass new penal provisions of that kind—

Mr. K. Griffith: If that is true, why not put your limit in the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: We have put limits in the Bill. There has been a complaint made about it by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He said, why impose a penalty of only £100 in respect of an offence which is greater than an offence which you have classified as a misdemeanour in the earlier part of the section? I feel very sensitive to that criticism. If the penalties do not prove to be adequate, if there is evasion, we can lay an Order in Council on the Table of the House, and move in both Houses an affirmative Resolution with the object of getting those penalties increased. It has also been pointed out that we have not put in 'the Bill matters that were included in the agreement. It may be that in regard to some of the other matters which are in the agreement it will be necessary to implement those matters by legislation. This Bill is limited as a Merchant Shipping Bill, and is limited to matters connected with the sea. There might be other matters in the agreement to which in order to give effect to the spirit of the agreement it will be necessary to give legislative force so far as British nationals are concerned. If it were necessary in order to fulfil the spirit of the agreement so to do, the Government would not hesitate to place an Order in Council upon the Table and ask the House by affirmative Resolution to give His Majesty power to carry it out in the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement.
For those reasons, and in view of the explicit assurance that was given by my

hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade yesterday, and his explicit assurance of the limits within which it was intended to operate, I think I have done something to satisfy those who share with me a feeling of some hesitation whenever they see a Clause like this in a Bill. I would only add this. The whole question of Ministers' powers was, as every hon. Member knows, investigated at length by the Donoughmore Committee. One of the matters they had to consider was the so-called Henry VIII clause, and it was notable that the Donoughmore Committee did not say that the clause was never permissible. They emphasised that its use must be extremely rare. This is one of the exceptional cases in the view of the Government that can be met only by a Clause of this kind.

1.5 a.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I had not intended to intervene, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has convinced me by his speech that this is a most undesirable Clause. He admits that he does not like it, and as far as I can make out, he had nothing to do with the framing of it, and, as it was a Government Clause, he must discharge his duty as Solicitor-General. He made out no case for drafting a Clause of this kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Donoughmore Committee. I am very sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is not here, as I know he was very anxious about this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that these Henry VIII powers were a most objectionable feature in legislation, and should be avoided. He did not give a single argument in support of his case as to why it is necessary to have legislation of this kind. This is exceptional legislation, and it should not be beyond the wit of skilled draftsmen to draft a clause showing clearly its purpose and the penalty for a breach of the law. He did not give any explanation why the penalty was not included in this Clause, although it was included in another Clause. I do not think we ought to part from this Clause in its present form, and make a precedent of this objectionable character. I hope he will give us some assurance that on the Report stage a better Clause may be drafted to fulfill the purpose.

1.7 a.m.

Mr Garro Jones: I am sure that this Clause is very distasteful to every hon. Gentleman. Were it not for the fact that I, personally, regard this Bill in general as a fairly honest attempt to deal with a very difficult situation, I should be anxious to do everything within the power of a Member to prevent it from going through. I do not think the Government have been successful in their attempt to deal with the situation, but I believe they have made an honest attempt to deal with it. The part of the Clause to which I object most strongly and seriously is the last line of Subsection one, and I really think it is amazing that a Minister can stand at that Box and admit that the last line on Sub-section (1) gives him power by Order in Council to alter or amend the Merchant Shipping Act.
I would like to raise a point of Order with you, Sir Dennis, on this question, and to ask you if the fact is that the Minister is taking power to amend any provision in regard to the Merchant Shipping Act. I can argue and give reasons why the Minister should not amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. I can conceive I should be strictly in order on this proposal, which gives power to amend any provision of the Merchant Shipping Act.

Dr. Burgin: Would the hon. Gentleman let me point out to him one fact? He is taking exception, if I understand him rightly, to the powers in line 39 and 40 dealing with possible amendments in the Merchant Shipping Act. He will, of course, not have failed to observe that that power is limited by the words of the clause.
Such Orders in Council as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to any arrangements made in pursuance of the provisions of the observation agreement relating to merchant shipping or to any further agreement amending or supplementing those provisions.
Having had something to do with the drafting of the Sub-section I want Members of the Committee to understand that what we have got to do is to keep pace With Amendments to the observation agreement. These may touch merchant shipping on a number of points which it is difficult to specify, and we have to provide that we can amend not only this but the Carriage of Munitions to Spain Act

or other parts of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Mr. Garro Jones: That confirms what I have said. It is in the power of the Minister to make any Amendment he likes to any portion of the Merchant Shipping Acts. It has only to satisfy him. He is the judge in his own court. That being so, it would open up considerable difficulties for the Chair if we were to argue in favour of exempting from the power which the Minister claims certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts which we claim are valuable. I think it really is a type of Clause to which the House of Commons, sitting as the House or as a Committee, ought to unite to object, because I am convinced that whatever reasons of convenience may be argued in favour of this Clause, the reasons of principle against this type of Clause far outweigh them. I hope that no Minister will come to this House with such a Clause again. So far as my little efforts go, I should never allow such a Clause to go through in general legislation without opposing to it the full force of opposition, and indeed obstruction, that I can bring to bear.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I must admit that I am getting very tired of trying to persuade Members on the other side to take the sensible and democratic course. It is the Board of Trade to which these powers are being given. We have had an exhibition this evening, in the discussion that has taken place of the hopeless incompetence and duplicity of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade, while all the arguments are flying around, has been sitting there like a deflated Buddha with his eyes to heaven. The Parliamentary Secretary has been whispering to the Solicitor-General and the Solicitor-General has been whispering to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Then two of them slipped out, and the consequence of the consultation is that when one of them gets to the Box we get something that is almost human in its character. Yet the House of Commons is asked, and I cannot understand it, to hand over to this bunch of Tussaudian exhibits the power and authority of the House of Commons. I want to appeal to Members to oppose any such course. There is no justification for it, and it cannot serve any purpose.
I do not want to repeat the unanswerable arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but I do appeal to the Committee not to hand over such powers which can be used for a very dangerous purpose. We have seen to-night that the Board of Trade and those associated with it have no understanding of the problems connected with territorial waters or the fate of British ships. How we can contemplate for one moment putting British seamen and British captains under the menace which could be put over them by the Orders-in-Council passed by such incompetence as has been guiding the discussions to-night. I do not think any man who has any regard for British seamen or their welfare can contemplate. The arguments put up the other night that some of the hon. Members are less concerned for the Empire or British interests seem to be turning up again on this Question. Since I come to this House, whether any question of the rights of Parliament or the rights of Britain were in question, the noble Lord has always got up and put everybody right on the powers, privileges and rights of the House of Commons. I am certain that if, at any time, there had been any suggestion of an indignity or insult to a Britisher he would have been up and torn a passion to tatters, but now he sits there calm and sphinx-like while British seamen and British interests are being betrayed.

1.19 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I want to correct an observation which the Parliamentary-Secretary made in reply to an hon. Member as regards the amending of Sub-section (1). He suggested that there was some limitation as to the matters of amendment in the Merchant Shipping Act. There is not anything at all. There is a limitation upon the reasons for producing an Order in Council, that is to say, an Order must appear to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to either the old or some new arrangement. Once that has been decided, the last sentence in that Order in Council enables any amendment of this Measure, any enactment relating to merchant shipping, and therefore the position is unlimited. If the words "any other necessary enactment" or some such words as that had been

included there would have been some limitation, but these wide words mean that you can insert in that Order, once there is justification for making it, any amendment of the law.
There is one other matter to which I would draw the attention of hon. Members opposite in order that they may see the extent of the powers given in this Clause. Suppose we had been fortunate enough to persuade the Committee to accept some Amendments on this Bill which would then become part of the Act of Parliament, the Government could the next day, by Order in Council, wipe out the whole of the amendments made by this House. It seems a very convenient thing for the Executive to be able to do, but not exactly desirable.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Garro-Jones: May I make an appeal to the Minister in charge of this Bill to see whether he cannot adopt the suggestion made my hon. and learned Friend, namely, by putting in some such words as "some necessary enactment" in line 14 to make is clear that the last line is governed by the opening sentence of clause 3. He has told us that the words are so governed, but doubt has been expressed by hon. Members who are highly competent to express an opinion, and I really think he might go a little further to meet us in that direction. It certainly is not clear that the words are governed by the opening words of the Clause, and if, indeed they are governed, no harm can be done by making it quite explicit in the last line. I hope the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will make some amendment.

1.24 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I think that, as a matter of construction, the meaning is plain, because the order that His Majesty may make is an order that is necessary or expedient for certain purposes.

Mr. Bevan: As it appears to him.

The Solicitor-General: So that His Majesty is to be satisfied that it is necessary or expedient. It is only such an Order that may comply with the provisions for amending an enactment relating to merchant shipping, so that the Order which is substantially so amended is one which His Majesty considers to be necessary or


expedient to carry the Act into operation. I think the governing words "necessary or expedient" remain for what they are worth. I do not pretend they they have an enormous value. It is clear, on consideration of a Clause of this kind, that for what they are worth they carry that meaning right through the Clause, and apply to the last words that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) has mentioned. I would only add that, of course, we are all sensitive of the very patriotic arguments of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the appeal which he made for consideration of merchant seamen. But actually, in reference to merchant shipping, it must not be lost sight of that this is a Merchant Shipping Act, and, strange as it may seem, we are often apt to forget that it is called a Merchant Shipping Act and that the principal Act of 1936—the Carriage of Munitions to Spain Act—is also a Merchant Shipping Act, so that the power to amend any other provisions relating to merchant shipping covers the previous Act as well as the better-known

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[1.27 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emery, J. F.
Peake, O.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Penny, Sir G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Everard, W. L.
Petherick, M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Radford, E. A.


Apsley, Lord
Furness, S. N.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A, B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boulton, W. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rowlands, G.


Brawn, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Simmonds, O. E.


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Somerset, T.


Butler, R. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Spens, W. P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Leckie, J. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T, L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Channon, H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinslead)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Cranborne, Viscount
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McKie, J, H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Cross, R. H.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col, E. T. R.


Culverwell, C. T.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


De Chair, S. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Doland, G. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Donner, P. W.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wragg, H.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.



Duggan, H. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Duncan, J. A. L.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Commander Southby and Lieutenant-


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Patrick, C. M.
Colonel Llewellin.

Act which does not come into this controversy.

Mr. Bevan: What would be the difference if the Government, instead of presenting this Bill to the House at all, simply presented Clause 3 as the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: I think the difference would be that we would not have got our Bill.

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that as Clause 3 gives to the Government power to amend this Bill, and actually to carry legislation by order to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, then, as a matter of fact, the Government need only have come to the House of Commons and asked for permission to make Orders in Council which would, indeed, be conferring upon the Government exactly the powers for which they are asking. The Bill is simply very bad sugar-coating on a very rotten pill.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes 44.

NOES.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ridley, G.


Bevan, A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Simpson, F. B.


Cooks, F. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daviet, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbia, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ede, J. C.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Paling, W.



Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gatlacher, W.
Potts, J.
Sir Percy Harris and Sir Hugh Seely.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Price, M. P.

CLAUSE 4.—(Short title, construction, interpretation, extent, commencement and duration.)

1.34 a.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, after "Act," to insert:
shall not come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the foreign powers at present represented on the International Committee on Non-Intervention have all taken action similar in substance and effect to the provisions of this Act, and subject to such certification.
I am hopeful that the Government will accept this Amendment. In the course of the Second Reading debate the Parliamentary Secretary used these words:
It is in the contemplation of His Majesty's Government that in the event of the Bill becoming law it will not be brought into force until the principal maritime countries trading with Spain have adopted similar legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1937; col. 2216, vol. 321.]
That, I understand, is the intention of the Government, and that is the very short point in our proposal. I would only add that the fact clearly arises from our experience of this war in Spain that certain Powers are not to be trusted on their word only. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had to state, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), that the definite promise of one of the countries had not been carried out and that, after the agreement against sending volunteers to Spain, troops had been sent into Spain. We have objected all along to that unilateral action on the part of His Majesty's Government. We have accused the Government of having carried out unilateral action. The people of other countries have not come into line. What was in the words of the Parliamentary

Secretary, is contained in our Amendment, and we think that the Bill should be amended in accordance with the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary.

1.39 a.m.

Mr. Cocks: I think few words are needed from me to support this Amendment. It strikes me as merely commonsense. I hope the Committee and the Government will accept it. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, there are Powers in this Agreement that we do not entirely trust. Unless the Governments of Germany and Italy pass legislation similar to this, the Bill will be more unfair, one-sided and useless than at the present time. We distrust the Italian Government, and all we can say in courtesy is that its leader seems to have a different conception of the word "honour" from that accepted in this country. As to the leader in Germany, he wrote in his book that lying was a necessary thing for a statesman. The third party we distrust is, of course, His Majesty's Government, who all through this scheme pretend to be impartial but who, under a cloak of hypocrisy, do everything they can to harm and injure the Government of Spain and to help the rebels. In fact, the attitude of the Foreign Secretary and, I am afraid I must say, of the Noble Lord who helps him, reminds me of lines written by Rudyard Kipling about quite another character:
One hand upon my tress-shirt front to show my heart is clean;
The other crooked behind my back to signal "Strike again.
It is to prevent the Government striking again in this way that we move this Amendment.

1.42 a.m.

Dr. Burgin: I had hoped the Committee would have accepted the quite


unqualified undertaking which I gave in the course of the Second Reading Debate on behalf of the Government—an undertaking which followed in terms one given in another place by the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is not the intention of the Government that British ships should be subjected to the disabilities of this scheme in advance of the other principal maritime countries. It is the desire of the Government that this scheme should become effective, but that other maritime countries should come into line with this country before bringing this Bill into force, and the Government will use their best endeavours to secure that object, but they must reserve their freedom to bring the Bill into force when they are satisfied that such measures have been enacted by those countries as will secure the operation of the scheme to a sufficiently wide extent.
The undertaking given by the Government, which is categorical, is that the Bill shall not be brought into force until the principal maritime countries trading with Spain have adopted similar legislation. The Amendment which is now before the Committee goes very much wider, and suggests that legislation must first be passed by all the 27 countries; in other words, by the other 26 countries. There are a number of countries—Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Turkey—which cannot possibly be said to be principal maritime countries trading with Spain. If the object of the Committee is to see that this scheme to which the Government are now a party becomes practical and effective, it really is idle to suggest that its operation shall be deferred until the one last reluctant member has passed legislation. That really is not a practical suggestion.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will see that his words include the suggestion that all the other countries should take action similar in substance and effect. I do not know how it would be possible for us to express a judgment on the legislation of some other countries, but the substantial point I want to put to the Committee is that the Government have proposed that this Bill, when it has become an Act, should be deferred in its operation until the other principal maritime countries have come into line, but when that moment comes

and it is felt that the scheme can be operated on a large scale to make it effective, they desire to have their hands free and be able then on an appointed day to bring the Act into operation.

1.43 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman has been just a little bit too clever in his argument. He has observed that it is not easy or a function of this Government to judge the similarity of the legislation passed in other countries. The pledge he has given is that this legislation shall not come into operation until the other principal maritime Powers have "done likewise." What is "likewise?" Likewise is similar. Yet, he says, the Government is not in a position to judge of the similarity. Will he explain to the Committee what it is that the other principal maritime countries are expected to do, and will he explain whether a Measure of this sort, passed by another maritime country, with quite illusory penalties included in it, such as could not really have any material effect, would be considered to be "likewise" or similar? Will he also tell the Committee who are the principal maritime Powers upon whose legislation he has given a pledge to wait? Will he give us a list of the countries which must first pass legislation before this Bill will come into operation?

1.47 a.m.

Dr. Burgin: I have no possible reason for not wishing to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Scheme of the White Paper is the agreement which other countries, twenty-six in number have entered into, as we have. What penalties they think fit to adopt is entirely a matter for their sovereign legislatures. What the Governments have undertaken to do is to pass such measures as are necessary to place the captains, masters and men of their mercantile marine under the obligation to carry out the undertaking which their Governments have entered into. As to what "likewise" means, I said in the Second Reading Debate:
It is our intention to implement the promise we have given by signing the international scheme, but it is our intention, when the Bill is passed, that it shall only be brought into effective operation simultaneously with the adoption of like measures by the principal maritime countries which have business with Spain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1937; cols. 2114–5, Vol. 321.]


I think that is quite clear. It means that those bigger countries which do very large maritime business with Spain are to pass legislation which makes it incumbent on their mercantile marine to carry out the obligations which their Governments have accepted on their behalf.

Sir S. Cripps: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question? He has given an undertaking to the House that this legislation will not become operative until certain other countries have done certain things. Will he tell us which those other countries are? He must know, if he has given that undertaking.

Dr. Burgin: I do not think it is expedient that I should give a list of countries having the power to block the scheme. I think that would be most unwise. It is quite easy for hon. Members to see for themselves what countries have lines running to Spain and the countries which have business with Spain. It would be most unwise to say from this Box that we are proposing to hold this legislation up until countries A, B, C. D, or E—naming them—had passed some sort of legislation. That might seem to be putting powers into the hands of other countries which I do not wish to give.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Our main preoccupation, as the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, is that those Powers which have been actively helping General Franco shall not go on doing so while we are bound by legislation by which they are not bound. They are Italy and Germany; there is no difficulty about saying that. If the hon. Gentleman will tell us that his declaration means that we shall not bring this into force until Italy and Germany do the same, we shall be content; at least, I shall.

Dr. Burgin: I can give that declaration unhesitatingly. It is, of course, a very different question. That those countries must be included is elementary, but that I should name from this Box a whole lot of countries as though they might be tempted to blackball this scheme, would be unwise.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Cocks: There are two points I would like to bring to the attention of the Government. The first is in paragraph (d)—the reference to the Canary Islands. We know that the Canary Islands are exempt from the operation of the Measure. The Canary Islands are at present held down by force by General Franco, and those leaders of the Democrats who have not been shot are, I believe, interned in various prison ships in the harbour. If the Canary Islands are exempted, it is possible that certain Powers such as Italy and Germany may send to the Canary Islands and land there large quantities of arms and a large number of armed men. At a subsequent date it may be possible to transfer those arms and those men to Spain without being affected in any way by the provisions of this Measure. The White Paper says the Canaries are to be included in the future. The International Committee intend to determine the way in which supervision shall be exercised in the Canary Islands at a date not later than 31st March. That is only a fortnight hence, and I would like to ask the Government whether they can guarantee by 31st March the International Committee will have any scheme of supervision for the Canary Islands. If the Government do not give this guarantee, we shall conclude that this is only another gap in the scheme that is intended to give Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini another opportunity to conquer Spain.

1.52 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade can give some further explanation in the matters of Sub-section 3 (b). Yesterday on the Second Reading he told us it was the intention of the Board of Trade to issue such certificate as is there stated to set up a limited liability company in this country which would take over the financial obligations of the international board. As I understand the scheme of finance, it is that the funds shall be provided to the extent of the estimate of £834,000 for 12 months in a fund known as the International Fund, to be contributed to by the Government. The International Fund will be administered by the board. I presume that if any British national who is either a seaman, or master, or owner has a claim against


the International Board, that will be brought against the limited liability company in the courts in this country. I am anxious to know what assets this limited liability company will have in order to meet a claim, and how a similar arrangement is going to be made say in France and other countries. Are we to have an international cartel, or simply one national limited liability company?

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I emphasise the point about the Canaries. We do feel there is a very dangerous gap there, and we do feel it is the duty of the Non-Intervention Committee to close it. I have thought over the plan and I have discussed it with friends outside the House, and I see no difficulty in that plan. I think it will be easy to adopt and quick to execute.

1.55 a.m.

Dr. Burgin: With regard to the Canary Islands, I think the position was explained quite clearly during our deliberations yesterday. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) mentioned the possibility of munitions or men being landed in the Canary Islands and subsequently being transported by other ships from the Canary Islands to the mainland. He appreciates fully that a British ship will not be able to do that, and of course he appreciates that our Parliament cannot place obligations on foreign ships not to do it. Under the scheme, British vessels would not be able to ply from the Canary Islands to the Spanish mainland. That would be a vessel proceeding to waters adjacent to Spanish territories within the meaning of Clause 1 (1) of the Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The danger in our minds is that General Franco has ships which would do for transportation from the Canaries to Spain, and that without observers they will take arms and men to Spain.

Dr. Burgin: I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is raising. The position is one that it is necessary to come to by steps. It is quite clear that although the Canary Islands are not Spanish territory within the meaning of the prohibition of the scheme as it at present stands, although the scheme by Clause 14 admits of an Amendment to deal with it, it is not lawful at present

for a British vessel to carry munitions or volunteers from the Islands to the mainland.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not even to the Canaries.

Dr. Burgin: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands—

Mr. Noel-Baker: Under the legislation of last December.

Dr. Burgin: I agree it may be possible under the Carriage of Munitions Act to prevent munitions being taken from a British port by British ships to the Canaries. That may well be so. This Act deals with observation carried on at sea and the Canaries are not Spanish territory as a destination under this Act. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has raised the point that here there is something lacking in the international scheme and that here there is the possibility of an evasion, and he is calling attention to the matter now so that the Government representatives on the Non-Intervention Committee may use their best endeavours to procure the closing of that gap. I am quite sure that the delegates to the Committee will be aware of this Debate and the views expressed, and that it will be one of the matters raised when discussions are taking place with a view that steps should be taken with such rapidity and assiduity as are possible.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), he has repeated the question which he asked me during the Second reading, with regard to this limited liability company that it is intended to set up. My impression is that the assets which the English limited liability company will have will be sixteen per cent. of the £834,000 during the course of the twelve months, which it will be this Government's duty to subscribe. I am not yet fully informed about the matter. The whole arrangements are still in embryo and therefore I cannot give the House full information about the forming of the English limited liability company.

Mr. Cocks: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of Sub-section (5)? Does it mean a different appointed day for different ships? Does it mean that it applies to the ships of one country at one time and to other countries at a later period? There would be a danger of it


applying to British ships at one period and Italian ships at another period.

Dr. Burgin: It is a fundamental principle that this Act will not come into force until similar mercantile countries have taken similar action and therefore a date cannot be specified for its coming into law in its provisions. It may be necessary to bring the scheme into operation at short notice, and exception may be necessary for ships which have left this country and are on their way to Spain. There is nothing sinister about it at all.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

2.1 a.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I have taken no part in the discussion so far because the House has been admirably served by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, the learned Solicitor-General and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but there is a matter of importance to which I should like to recall the attention of the House. The House will remember that earlier in our discussions the Committee had before them this consideration: the susceptibilities of Spain, with special reference to the territorial waters during the prosecution of the activities we may anticipate under this Scheme. We have considered this subject afresh, and I should like to make a categorical statement which can be put on record. The Bill imposes penalties on Masters who do not stop when summoned by a warship operating under the international agreement in waters adjacent to Spain. It will depend on the attitude of Spain whether the warships of particular nations can exercise powers in Spanish territorial waters or not. If the Spanish Government question the right of the British Government to operate warships inside territorial waters I can give an unqualified assurance that His Majesty's Government would certainly undertake not to do so.
So far as other countries are concerned, this would be a matter between them and the Spanish Government. If

the Spanish Government objected and if the Spanish Government considered that a breach of the Covenant had been committed, it would always be open to them to bring the matter before the League, and it would receive objective consideration. I would, however, remind hon. Members that the international aspect of the troubles in Spain has already been considered by the Council. What did the Council do? It expressed warm approval of the work of the Non-Intervention Committee and urged it to continue its labours. I would remind the House that the Spanish Foreign Minister was sitting on the Council when this expression of view was made. This agreement is, therefore, in harmony with the spirit of the resolution of the Council. I hope that that will relieve the minds of some who were agitating about the rights of Spain.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: All of us on this side of the House will want to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the statement which he has made, which confirms the impression which I had from a fading memory on the rule of international law, that we had the power in this House to oblige masters of British vessels to allow them to be stopped by German or other vessels and to impose penalties if they did not do so, but that we had no power and no other Power had power, of legislation for Spanish territorial waters or to oblige ships to accept any action by foreign warships in these waters unless they desired to do so. We have been partly comforted, but not very far, by the discussion in Committee tonight.
On the question of publicity the Parliamentary Secretary did indeed give us some hope that the Government would press strongly with the Non-Intervention Committee for the fullest possible publicity of the reports of observing officers. I want to make a point which I was going to make on Clause 1. It is this: Whether any system of control will work or not depends on the spirit which those who are in charge of it bring to their task, and we are not satisfied that this scheme will work unless the leading Government in Europe—that is the Government of this country—brings to this work a ruthless determination to make this scheme work in the interests of the world at large. On


that point we were not very much comforted by the speech which was made by the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. We have been very much disturbed by the way in which the Government dealt with non-intervention last winter. The Under-Secretary said last night that owing to the Non-Intervention Committee only a trickle of arms—I think those were his words—was reaching Spain. It seems to us that he was shutting his eyes to the patent fact. There is the witness of many journalists and of the men themselves who have been into battle, that General Franco's troops have received an immense modern armament, with which they are now martyrising the people of Spain, and we believe that if our Government had taken a much stronger line and led the Non-Intervention Committee in exposing the action of Hitler and Mussolini in giving the help they gave in flagrant violation of their own pledges on August 8th, the whole history must have been very different indeed.
Another passage of the noble Lord's speech filled me with some alarm. We are thinking of the effect of statements like these in the capitals of Berlin and Rome. He said that if the Spanish Government desired to stop the international invasion going on they could raise it in the Council of the League. We ask that the Government should, immediately, as a condition of putting this scheme into operation, raise the matter in the most vigorous possible manner in the Non-Intervention Committee, and demand that some scheme of evacuating troops from Spain should be effected, and if they fail, go to the League and proceed with the regular procedure of the League for dealing with aggression. I admit that going to the League may be called the Spaniards' job, but when the noble Lord said that we should give objective consideration to that—

Mr. Speaker: The speech of the noble Lord was made on Second Reading and I hardly think that this is a convenient matter for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not wish to abuse the generosity which we all greatly appreciated last night, and I will draw my remarks to an abrupt conclusion. I want to say only that we are very seriously disturbed about the spirit in which the Government are approaching

this matter of control. Unless they are prepared to take a much bolder line than they have taken hitherto we do not believe that this scheme will work. Leadership from them is required, and leadership particularly in bringing about an evacuation of the foreign troops who are now in Spain and carrying out an aggressive invasion of Spanish soil. We think that that evacuation is an essential condition of any lasting scheme of control such as is now proposed. If such an evacuation is not brought about we are convinced that this control will be a temporary expedient, that public indignation will speed it away very soon, but that it will be dangerous while it lasts. Yesterday we voted against the Second reading. We did so because of the serious gaps in the scheme, because of the record of the Government in non-intervention and the spirit in which they approach this matter, and because they did not promise vigorous initiative to bring this foreign invasion to an end. We voted as a protest. I want now to say that our protest was made on Second reading. The Government mean to carry through this Bill and put the scheme into execution. The responsibility is theirs. The blame will be theirs if disastrous results follow because of the inadequacy of their action. Having made our protest, we mean, if the Third Reading is challenged, to abstain from voting.

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Cocks: I confess that I take a much stronger line of antagonism to this Bill and the Government than the hon. Member who has just sat down. I was very sorry to hear his concluding remarks. After all, the Opposition challenged the Second Reading of the Bill and since then the Bill has not been altered by one comma. It is exactly the same Bill as we voted against on the Second Reading, and I see no logical reason why we should not proceed to a division on the Third Reading as well. But I do regard this Measure, although I am not acquainted with all the legislation which has been passed by this House, as one of the most mischievous, almost the most despicable and useless pieces of legislation that have ever been brought before this House. It seems to me to be part of a general scheme that has been going on in the last few months to destroy the Spanish Government, and over the bodies of the Spanish people to erect a Fascist state in Spain.


Under this Bill the British Navy is to be closely associated with the navies of Germany and Italy, which have been avowedly assisting the rebels and fighting the Spanish people. Under this Bill it is possible that the Spanish Government will be deprived of the arms it needs with which to defend itself, whilst on the other hand, under the great gaps in the Bill, large supplies of arms and munitions can be poured into the rebel side, either on one coast under the useless empty guns of the British Navy, or on the other side of Spain they can actually be poured in under the loaded and shotted guns of the German and Italian navies.
I confess, when I realise that to erect Fascism in Spain would be to increase the menace to this country—for a Fascist Spain would be a great menace to our Empire and our communications and to the well-being of our country—the attitude of the Government in this country is almost inexplicable. I can think of only one explanation, that the Government or the Foreign Office are so sympathetic to Facism themselves that they prefer weakening, or risking, the British Empire rather than see the growth of democratic forces in another part of Europe. During the Abyssinian dispute—

Mr. Speaker: This has very little to do with the Bill.

Mr. Cocks: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but if it is in order might I say that I formed the opinion, after conversations with people at the Foreign Office and listening to speeches, that although the Foreign Office at the time was very sorry the Abyssinians did not make a better

Division No. 121.]
AYES.
[2.17a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Albery, Sir Irving
Channon, H.
Grimston, R. V.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hannah, I. C.


Apsley, Lord
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harris. Sir P. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. dale of Thanet)
Cross, R. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Blair, Sir R.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Holmes, J. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Culverwell, C. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Boulton, W. W.
De Chair, S. S
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Doland, G. F.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Duggan, H. J.
Lamb, Sir J. p.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bull, B. B.
Emery, J. F.
Leckie, J. A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A, T. L.


Butler, R. A.
Everard, W. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)

fight and give the Foreign Office more bargaining power, yet they would not do a single thing which would have the effect of weakening Mussolini's system in Italy. It seems that this is still persisting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, Order!

Mr. Cocks: I would only say that under this Bill they are sacrificing the ancient civilisation of Spain and a noble and gallant people who are rightly struggling to be free. Last night I stated my objections to this Bill. I have no intention, even if you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, of repeating those arguments. I just want to say that if there is anybody in this House who has a sense of chivalry or a feeling of fair play, who loves liberty and cherishes democracy, I ask him to vote against this Bill on the Third reading. The Spanish people are fighting for liberty and freedom against the forces of Fascism and death. Liberty and freedom are precious flowers. It is our duty to see that they are not trampled down where they are growing in the soil of Spain. I have just remembered a couple of lines written by one who was not a poet but a novelist, but was a poet when he wrote these words—John Galsworthy. He ended a poem on the subject of the partition of Persia in which, speaking of freedom and liberty, and addressing this country he said:
Oh native land, let not these only flowers Of God, be desert strewn and withered now.
If anybody will help me, I will divide the House.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 16.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ramsbotham, H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


McKie, J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tinker, J. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tufnall, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Warrendar, Sir V.


Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Rowlands, G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wragg, H.


Patrick, C. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Peake, O.
Somerset, T.



Penny, Sir G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Petherick, M.
Spens. W. P.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward


Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
and Major Sir George Davies.




NOES.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Westwood, J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Potts, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Dobbie, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Gallacher, W.
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr Cocks and Mr. Buchanan.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes after Two o'Clock a.m.